ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Cardiff City Deal

Edward Argar: What discussions he has had with his ministerial colleagues on proposals for a Cardiff city deal.

Stephen Crabb: The Cardiff city deal represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to raise growth levels right across the region, securing Cardiff’s position as one of the best capital cities in Europe and a fantastic place in which to do business. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and I met leaders from the Cardiff capital region to discuss the city deal and to ensure that progress and momentum are being maintained.

Edward Argar: My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Craig Williams) has long championed the city deal to help deliver even greater success for Cardiff and Wales, but for it to succeed everyone must be as committed to delivering for Cardiff as he and the Secretary of State so clearly are. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the Welsh Assembly Government’s commitment to this city deal and particularly their commitment to funding it?

Stephen Crabb: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I discussed the Cardiff city deal proposal on Monday with the First Minister, and I am pleased and reassured that all parties are now strongly committed to it. I think that there are still some questions to be asked about the nature of the financial commitment coming from the Welsh Government, but there is now momentum behind the deal and we look forward to getting it secured as soon as possible.

Jo Stevens: On financial commitment, last month, I asked the Secretary of State whether his Government would match the £580 million that the Welsh Government are putting towards the Cardiff city deal. Has he got a cheque from the Chancellor yet?

Stephen Crabb: I am slightly surprised by the hon. Lady’s tone. We have already put £125 million on the table to help with rail electrification. The Welsh Government may want to put that into the pot. We have already put £50 million towards the compound semiconductor catapult centre in Cardiff. There is no question mark over our commitment to securing an ambitious city deal for Cardiff. As I have said, there are some questions about the nature of the Welsh Government’s financial support for such a deal, but I am sure that, with the correct attitude, we can work through those issues and land a deal.

Craig Williams: I am sure the Secretary of State will join me in welcoming the massive announcement that Aston Martin will be building its new vehicle in south Wales. Does that not emphasise the important nature of the private sector involvement in the city deal, and what is he doing to ensure that the Welsh Government and local authorities engage with the private sector so that they lever in more money?

Stephen Crabb: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. First, though, let me put on record our congratulations to him and his wife, Clare, as it is a few days after the birth of their second child. It is wonderful to see him taking a break from paternity leave to stand here today championing the interests of his constituents in Cardiff. He is absolutely right on two counts. The first is on the success of bringing the Aston Martin deal to Wales, which is a great example of the Welsh and the UK Governments working together in a true team Wales approach. The second is on the importance of business and the fact that it is right at the heart not just of helping to create the city deal vision, but of delivering it as well

Huw Irranca-Davies: Let me pass on my congratulations to the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Craig Williams). I also congratulate the workforce in the St Athan area—in the seat of the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns)—and the Welsh Labour Government on their support for that project, the Cardiff city deal and the Swansea city deal. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the support will be there for Cardiff and for the proposal by Terry Matthews for an “internet coast” that links Swansea and west Wales as well, as that is where we will drive the jobs into Wales?

Stephen Crabb: The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of different initiatives all together in one question. The common thread running through them was the nature of partnership working, and we need to see more of that. I am talking about the Welsh Government, the UK Government and local partners all working together. The Aston Martin deal shows the fruit that can be borne when we have the right kind of attitude and commitment from the Prime Minister, the First Minister, the Ministry of Defence and excellent local MPs such as the Under-Secretary of State for Wales. I have discussed the Swansea city deal with Sir Terry Matthews. We are really interested in understanding it in a bit more detail, and we want to work with the Swansea city deal partners as well as our partners in Cardiff.

Michael Fabricant: Is it not the case that Aston Martin moved to St Athan in the Greater Cardiff region partly because of the success of organisations such as Superfast Cymru, which is delivering fast broadband, and particularly because of the skills that now exist in south Wales?

Stephen Crabb: My hon. Friend, who has a great love for and knowledge of Wales, is right. The most important thing for securing big inward investment projects such as Aston Martin, or the continued inward investment of companies such as Airbus, is the excellence of the skills and the workforce that we have now in Wales. We are not complacent about that. There is more progress that could be achieved, but the reason that such companies choose Wales over locations all round the world is the quality of the skills of the workforce, the quality of the infrastructure and the UK Government’s commitment to creating the best environment for economic growth.

Employment Levels

Rehman Chishti: What recent assessment he has made of trends in the level of employment in Wales.

Henry Bellingham: What assessment he has made of trends in the level of employment in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Alun Cairns: Employment in Wales is now at a record high, with more people than ever before having the security of a pay packet to provide for themselves and their family. Aston Martin has been mentioned. That is testimony to the significant investment that Wales is attracting.

Rehman Chishti: As a former student of Aberystwyth University, the oldest and the best law school in Wales, I have been pleased to see that more than 80% of employees in mid-Wales are now employed by small and medium-sized enterprises. Will the Minister join me in acknowledging the significance of that thriving community to the economy in Wales?

Alun Cairns: My hon. Friend is right and he is a true champion of Aberystwyth and of mid-Wales. He will be pleased to hear that there are 3,500 additional small businesses in that area, with an extra 5,500 people going out to work every day since 2010 as a result of the economic stability we have brought about.

Henry Bellingham: Does the Minister agree that the key to further enhancing employment in Wales is diversification and innovation in the rural economy, just as is happening in East Anglia? What specific measures does he have in mind to increase enterprise in Wales’s more remote areas?

Alun Cairns: My hon. Friend is a great expert on rural issues in relation to the success in his constituency in North West Norfolk, and I pay tribute to that. Employment growth in rural Wales has outperformed employment increases across the whole of Wales, which demonstrates the dynamism and the broad base on which those policies are being implemented. There is a range of initiatives such as the British Business Bank, the start-up loan scheme and the new enterprise allowance scheme on a UK Government basis, and we are keen to work with the Welsh Government to try to diversify further.

David Hanson: Now that it is official Government policy to support membership of the European Union in the referendum, will the Minister and the Secretary of State produce a report that shows the benefit of the European Union to jobs and investment in Wales?

Alun Cairns: Our position is clear. The Government support the deal that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has negotiated. Of course, Europe is important to our exporters and businesses, but it is also important because of the money repatriated from Europe to Wales and the United Kingdom through cohesion funding.

Mark Williams: As Aberystwyth’s MP, I reiterate the comments of the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti). If we are serious about creating more jobs, and we are, that means real investment in real infrastructure. Why, then, has the Government’s mobile infrastructure project been such a failure and delivered so little for rural Wales?

Alun Cairns: The hon. Gentleman raises this issue persistently. As a result of representations from him and others, I met Openreach earlier this week, as well as Broadband Delivery UK. I have plans to meet the mobile operators shortly to discuss what more can be done to improve the mobile infrastructure. With the 4G auction, at least 95% coverage will be gained in Wales. That contrasts significantly with the 3G auction and the low percentage that Wales was left with last time.

Guto Bebb: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating my constituent, Mr Sean Taylor, on the further expansion of his company, Zip World? In four years this company has gone from no staff to 220 staff, revitalising the economy of rural north-west Wales, to the benefit of employment and diversification of the local economy.

Alun Cairns: Many Members will appreciate the difficulties that zip wires can present, but I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is a true champion of zip wires and the success and diversification that they bring not only to his own constituency, but to Arfon. We are keen to see the further support and diversification of that business in his area.

Susan Elan Jones: Following the excellent news about Aston Martin, I pay tribute to that company, to our dynamic pro-business Welsh Labour Government and to everyone who was involved in securing the deal. As we are discussing trends in employment, and with around 200,000 jobs in Wales dependent on our EU membership, what does the Minister think would happen to trends in employment if we were daft enough to leave the EU?

Alun Cairns: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for recognising the efforts that the UK Government have made to attract investment, particularly with the major Aston Martin investment in my constituency. I think those comments should be underlined. Of course, the Government do not plan to leave the European Union; the Prime Minister has made the case, having negotiated a strong deal, and we are confident that the British people will support that when the referendum comes.

Welsh Economy

William Wragg: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of steps taken to rebalance the economy in Wales.

Craig Tracey: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of steps taken to rebalance the economy in Wales.

Stephen Crabb: This Government know that supporting our manufacturing industry is vital for rebalancing the economy. Despite challenging global conditions, we have seen 12,000 new manufacturing jobs created by businesses in Wales since 2010, reversing the decline we saw under the previous Labour Government.

William Wragg: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. How will small businesses in my constituency and in the north-west of England be able to benefit from the economic recovery in north Wales?

Stephen Crabb: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the strength of the economic recovery in north Wales. When I travel around Wales, I see that much of what is innovative and exciting is happening in north Wales. We are clear that the economy of north Wales is integrated in a single entity with the economy of north-west England, so there are lots of opportunities for small and medium-sized businesses on both sides of the border to benefit from the emerging northern powerhouse vision. I met the North Wales Business Council earlier this month and, like businesses across north Wales, it is calling out to be part of the northern powerhouse.

Craig Tracey: Does the Secretary of State agree that the success of the manufacturing industry in Wales, and across the rest of the UK, reflects a growing global demand for our products and is further evidence of the success of the Government’s ambitious Exporting is GREAT campaign?

Stephen Crabb: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; there is enormous and growing global demand for high-quality products manufactured in Wales. The Government have set ourselves really ambitious targets for increasing the level of UK exports, and I am clear that I want to see Welsh business sharing in that export surge. That is why UK Trade & Investment’s Exporting is GREAT roadshow truck will be in Deeside in north Wales tomorrow, explaining to small businesses there what export opportunities there are around the world.

Albert Owen: One way to rebalance the economy is to decentralise enterprise and services. Therefore, why are the Government closing tax offices and courts in peripheral areas of Wales, given the impact that has on the economy? They talk about decentralisation, but they centralise services when they have the opportunity.

Stephen Crabb: The hon. Gentleman should understand that the Government have a sacred duty to take care of how taxpayers’ money is spent. Despite all the problems we were left with in 2010, the truth is that we maintain a very strong UK Government footprint in Wales, and the growth in private sector jobs in Wales over the past five years far outstrips any reductions we have seen in public sector employment.

Jonathan Edwards: Partial income tax powers are of course a welcome step in helping the UK rebalance geographically, but it is vital that those powers are accompanied by a fiscal framework that genuinely preserves non-detriment to Wales. Given the Scottish Government’s successful struggle to achieve a no-detriment agreement, what specific representations has the Secretary of State received from the Welsh Government on their chosen deduction method, and what is his chosen deduction method? Is it not the case that partial income tax powers make it more difficult to achieve genuine non-detriment?

Stephen Crabb: The hon. Gentleman is right about the need to get the details right—we have just seen a very prolonged negotiation on the Scottish fiscal framework—but that is further down the line. We still have an ongoing discussion with the Welsh Government. They want to avoid taking on any income tax powers whatsoever. They want to avoid the additional fiscal responsibility that that would entail. They are running from having that fuller financial accountability that we believe is really important for Welsh democracy.

David Davies: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Severn bridge is key to the economy of south Wales, that the debt will be paid back before the April 2018 prediction and that it offers a golden opportunity to reduce tolls for businesses and hard-pressed motorists in Wales?

Stephen Crabb: My hon. Friend, who chairs the Welsh Affairs Committee, has been persistent and effective in raising concerns about the burden imposed on businesses and motorists in Wales by the very high tolls on the Severn bridge. We have not made any final decisions about what will happen when the private sector concession ends at the end of 2017, but we and the Treasury will be very keen to hear any specific ideas that he and members of his Committee might have.

Nia Griffith: Last year, the Secretary of State said his ambition was to secure more balanced growth in the Welsh economy, but on his watch we are seeing the loss of hundreds of jobs in our strategically important steel industry. The Government are being painfully slow to heed our warnings on cutting energy costs, and weak and disingenuous when it comes to standing up to Chinese dumping. With EU backing given in December, how much longer will the Government delay the energy compensation package the steel industry in Wales so desperately needs?

Stephen Crabb: I am really disappointed by the slightly tribal and partisan tone the shadow Secretary of State adopts on this issue. If she wants to talk about what has happened to steel jobs under Conservative and Labour Governments, I am happy to do that, and we can talk about the decline in steel jobs on the watch of previous Labour Governments. I am much more interested in getting answers now to the global storm facing the steel industry. This Government have taken a lead in Europe in changing procurement rules and arguing for protection measures against Chinese dumping. We are making sure that the steel industry in Wales has the best possible chance of a sustainable and profitable future.

Nia Griffith: The Government also have a key role in commissioning large infrastructure projects, which can boost manufacturing and rebalance the economy. Manufacturers across Wales, who are gearing up in earnest to supply the Swansea bay tidal lagoon, share my deep concern that the Government are now planning a lengthy review, which could scupper the project altogether. Will the Secretary of State now give us an unequivocal guarantee that this vital project will not be sunk by his Government?

Stephen Crabb: I notice that the shadow Secretary of State did not stand up and welcome what we saw yesterday—Her Majesty the Queen naming and opening the new Elizabeth Crossrail line, which, by the way, uses 50,000 tonnes of steel made in Wales by Celsa Steel. The hon. Lady should be absolutely welcoming that as a good example of how UK infrastructure investment can drive growth in the steel industry. On the tidal lagoon review, the chief executive of the Swansea tidal lagoon has welcomed it himself. He welcomes the fact that we are looking into this and exploring all options to see whether the project can be financially viable.

Mr Speaker: We are all better informed, albeit at some length.

John Howell: Does the Minister share my view that a prime mover behind rebalancing the economy is the sense of fairness? Does he agree that the action taken by the Government in freeing generations of people in constituencies throughout Wales is about making the best use of their talents? [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The House and the nation should have heard Mr Howell, and I fear they might not adequately have done so. [Interruption.] No, it will do for today—as long as the Secretary of State heard. But courtesy dictates.

Stephen Crabb: I did not hear the full question, but what I did hear was a really important point about fairness when it comes to rebalancing the economy. Unlike previous Labour Governments, who stood by while the economy of the United Kingdom became hopelessly imbalanced towards London and the south-east, we do not think that is good enough. We think that there are talents and resources in the north of England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the west of England that need to be captured and enhanced to drive growth in the UK.

Air Passenger Duty

Liam Fox: What assessment he has made of the potential effect of devolving air passenger duty to Wales.

Stephen Crabb: This Government have a proud record on devolution in Wales: establishing the Silk commission, devolving landmark new fiscal powers and taking forward the
	St David’s day agreement through the new Wales Bill. In that agreement, we committed to consider the case for devolving APD to Wales and this work is currently being undertaken and assessed by the Treasury.

Liam Fox: Devolving air passenger duty will create a market distortion favouring a state-owned airport against a private one. It will damage the economic viability of Bristol airport and have consequential detrimental effects in the south-west. When my right hon. Friend discusses this with the Chancellor, will he gently reflect on the fact that, had our colleagues not made such great gains in the south-west, there would not be a majority Conservative Government?

Stephen Crabb: I am sure that my right hon. Friend, like me, welcomes the fact that the Government are cutting APD in all parts of the UK. However, let us be clear: I want Cardiff airport to be a success story, but I also recognise that there are serious concerns about the effect APD devolution might have on competition issues in relation to Bristol airport.

Ian Lucas: Is the Secretary of State aware that north Wales’s local airports are in Liverpool and Manchester? Will he pull his finger out and have meetings to improve connectivity to Manchester airport by rail from north Wales?

Stephen Crabb: I am very aware of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises. I recently met the north Wales business council precisely to talk about the importance of a rail link from north Wales into Manchester airport. He makes an important point that we are very mindful of.

Workless Households

Bob Blackman: What assessment he has made of trends in the proportion of households in Wales which are workless.

Alun Cairns: Wales is getting back to work. There are 58,000 fewer workless households in Wales since 2010. Our welfare reforms are benefiting the people of Wales, helping them into jobs that will provide a regular wage for themselves and their families.

Bob Blackman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the far-reaching benefit changes and reforms of the welfare state are encouraging people to get back to work and have the dignity of earning a living rather than living a life on benefits?

Alun Cairns: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The unemployment rate in Wales has fallen by more than that in any part of the UK over the last quarter. Welfare reform is key to that. We are determined to deliver a low welfare, low tax, high wage economy.

Christina Rees: The Institute for Fiscal Studies warned this month that universal credit will tend to weaken the incentive for single parents to be in work. What assessment have the Government made of the effect that rolling out universal credit will have on the number of workless households in Wales?

Alun Cairns: Welfare reform needs to be taken in its totality. It is about incentivising work but also about increasing wages and lowering taxes. I would hope that the hon. Lady would reflect on the positive nature of welfare reform in turning around communities, families and society.

Large Infrastructure Projects

David Rutley: What recent discussions he has had with stakeholders in Wales on future investment in large infrastructure projects in north Wales.

Alun Cairns: The Secretary of State and I regularly meet stakeholders to discuss the Government’s plans to deliver improvements in infrastructure across the whole of Wales. For instance, next week the Secretary of State will meet Hitachi to discuss its proposals for a new nuclear power station at Wylfa in more detail.

David Rutley: Can my hon. Friend confirm that bringing HS2 to Crewe six years early, as part of the Government’s northern powerhouse, will directly benefit the people of north Wales and spur more economic development programmes in Wales, as well as in north-west England and Cheshire more generally?

Alun Cairns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. He highlights the fact that the HS2 project is truly a national scheme. The Crewe hub offers significant potential to north Wales and to the northern powerhouse. I recently met the North Wales-Mersey Dee alliance rail taskforce, which also recognises the potential of north Wales for the northern powerhouse and the northern powerhouse for north Wales.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Much is rightly made of trends in employment in Wales, but average full-time workers’ pay in my constituency has dropped by 12% in the past two years. What is the Secretary of State doing to bring infrastructure projects, along with science and technology salaries, to Llanbedr and Trawsfynydd in Dwyfor Meirionnydd?

Alun Cairns: The hon. Lady is naturally a true champion not only of her own constituency but the whole of north Wales. She will welcome the significant investment in the prison in Wrexham and the £20 billion investment that Wylfa Newydd will bring. She has also shown interest in the modular nuclear projects at Trawsfynydd. I recently met the leader of Gwynedd Council to discuss the prospects that could result from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s announcement in the Budget making £250 million available for this scheme.

Macur Review

Ann Clwyd: When he expects the report of the Macur review to be published.

Stephen Crabb: Lady Justice Macur’s report is being considered as a matter of urgency with a view to publication as soon as possible.

Ann Clwyd: Eight young boys in my constituency were abused in the 1980s. They have waited all this time for some conclusions. It is ridiculous that in the past two months Government Departments have been sitting on Lady Macur’s report. What is going on? I understand that redactions are taking place. What confidence can we have that when the report is eventually published it is a true report without interference from Government?

Stephen Crabb: I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. We are discussing something incredibly serious and sensitive. Let me put on record my thanks to her for the tireless work that she has put in over the years to fight for justice for those who have suffered horrendous abuse. We are talking about some of the most shameful episodes in the history of the nation of Wales.
	We have the report, and it is being looked at by the Crown Prosecution Service, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the police. Lady Justice Macur recommended to the Government that certain redactions might need to be made. The commitment that I give to the right hon. Lady and the House today is that we will make redactions only where they are absolutely necessary, and we will provide a full explanation of why we are making those redactions. We owe that to the victims.

Hywel Williams: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is concern about attention in the report to the language issue? The only attention that was given to the language issue in the Waterhouse report was to say that the children swore a great deal, as well they might have.

Stephen Crabb: The hon. Gentleman is getting into a level of detail about the matter that we can perhaps discuss outside this place on another occasion. Perhaps he and I could meet to talk about that.

Hywel Williams: The Wales Council for Voluntary Action criminal records unit, which provides free disclosure and barring checks for the third sector, will close on 31 May. The last paper application will be accepted this Friday. The WCVA has provided a bilingual service, which will cease on Friday. Does the Secretary of State share my concern about that cut?

Stephen Crabb: The hon. Gentleman knows that I want the Welsh language to flourish and be used on a day-to-day basis. I am not familiar with the case that he has raised, but if he wants to drop me a note, I will make sure that it is looked into fully.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Michelle Donelan: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 24 February.

David Cameron: The House will be aware of the dreadful accident that occurred at Didcot power station yesterday afternoon, in which one person died and three are missing. I know that the whole House will join me in sending our condolences to the family and friends of the victim and our best wishes to those who are still missing or injured. I pay tribute to the quick and incredibly brave actions of our emergency services, who dealt with the incident with typical professionalism. The Health and Safety Executive will carry out a full investigation to find out what led to the tragedy.
	This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and, in addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Michelle Donelan: I would like to associate myself and the people of Wiltshire with the Prime Minister’s sentiments about the occurrence in Didcot.
	Wiltshire has successfully integrated a number of Syrian refugees, including babies and children, who might otherwise have frozen or starved to death in the camps. However, there has been a serious delay by the Home Office, despite Wiltshire Council’s claims to have tried to introduce more refugees into the area. Will the Prime Minister tell us what more he can do on the matter? Will he look into it? Will he also outline what we can do to fulfil our moral duty to those desperate people?

David Cameron: Let me pay tribute to Wiltshire Council and to the many councils up and down our country that have done a magnificent job of integrating and taking in Syrian refugees and their families, finding them homes, finding them schools and, I hope, in time, finding them jobs, too. If we look at what has happened across Europe with the relocation and resettlement programme, we see that Britain has done far better than any other country. We said 1,000 by Christmas, and we have delivered 1,000 by Christmas.
	My hon. Friend asked what more we can do. First of all, I will make sure that she can meet the Home Office to talk about how we can make sure the system works well. We will continue to invest in the Syrian refugee camps, not least with the $11 billion that we raised at the landmark London conference. We will continue to do what we can to deliver the 20,000 Syrian refugees we said we would take into our country.

Jeremy Corbyn: I want to echo the Prime Minister’s tribute to all the emergency services in dealing with the major incident in Didcot. Our thoughts are with the families of the person who died and those who are missing or injured. We rely on our emergency services and we should make sure they are always there for all of us.
	The NHS staff survey published yesterday shows that nine out of 10 junior doctors already work extra hours beyond their normal contract. The survey also showed falling morale among that vital group of staff. What does the Prime Minister think the Health Secretary’s veto of a deal and the imposition of a contract will do to their morale?

David Cameron: First, the Health Secretary did not veto a deal. For four years we have had discussions about how important it is to have an NHS that works on a more seven-day basis. Let me pay tribute to the fact that so many in the NHS work so hard already at the weekends, but what matters is making sure we can have a genuine seven-day NHS.
	What I would say to junior doctors is that no junior doctor working legal hours will receive a pay cut. This contract will not impose longer hours. In fact, it has tougher safeguards to make sure it reduces the hours that are worked. We are not seeking to save money from the new contract. Nights, Saturday evenings and Sundays continue to attract unsocial hours payments. This is a good deal from a Government that are putting £10 billion more into our NHS.

Jeremy Corbyn: This dispute with the junior doctors has been on the basis of misrepresented research about weekend mortality. I will read the Prime Minister what the researchers themselves say:
	“It is not possible to ascertain the extent to which these excess deaths may be preventable; to assume that they are avoidable would be rash and misleading.”
	Are the Prime Minister and his Health Secretary being “rash and misleading” with these figures?

David Cameron: Let me agree with the right hon. Gentleman about something, which is that this dispute has been plagued by scaremongering and inaccurate statistics. The British Medical Association, in its first intervention, said that this was a 30% pay cut. That was completely untrue. In fact, it was so untrue that it had to take its pay calculator off its website, and it never put it back up again.
	Let me answer very directly the question about excess deaths. The 6,000 figure for excess deaths was based on a question asked by the Health Secretary of Sir Bruce Keogh, the medical director of the NHS. Now that we have had time to go into these figures in more detail, I can tell the House this: the Health Secretary was indeed guilty—he was guilty of an understatement. The true figure for excess deaths at the weekend are 11,000, not 6,000. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will now withdraw his totally unjustified attack on the Health Secretary. Will he withdraw it, now he knows the figures?

Jeremy Corbyn: It is just worth reflecting for one moment that there is no dispute with the junior doctors in Scotland or in Wales, because their Governments have had the sense to reach an agreement with the junior doctors. The Prime Minister must also be aware that the vast majority of the public in England are on the side of the junior doctors, not the Secretary of State.
	The situation actually gets worse. A freedom of information request by the BBC today reveals that, when asked for the source of the Health Secretary’s statistics, civil servants in the Department of Health decided to
	“offer up the most bland statement possible, that would neither confirm not contradict”
	the Health Secretary’s
	“statement.”
	Is it not time that the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary actually apologise for what they have done and correct these statements, and indeed, while they are about it, reach an honourable settlement with the junior doctors?

David Cameron: I think the best that can be said is that the right hon. Gentleman wrote that question before he heard my answer. I have given the fullest possible description of how the figure of 6,000 excess deaths was arrived at—the true figure being 11,000—but I note that there is absolutely no withdrawal of his accusation against the Health Secretary, even after he gets those figures.
	The right hon. Gentleman says there is no dispute in Scotland and Wales with the junior doctors. The reason for that is that Scotland and Wales are not trying to create more of a seven-day NHS. That seven-day NHS was not only in our manifesto—I want to make sure that hard-working people can access health services at an equal rate right through the week, because they do not just get ill on weekdays; but if he reads his own party’s report on its election defeat, he will see that it admits that the concept of a seven-day NHS was a very popular concept, and it is.
	The right hon. Gentleman can see that in England, we are putting £10 billion more into the NHS, we have got 10,000 more doctors and 10,000 more nurses, we are treating more patients, we have a settlement of the GP contract and we now have a settlement of the junior doctors contract. We are building a strong NHS for patients—that is what this is about.

Jeremy Corbyn: We all want a strong and successful NHS, but that will not be achieved by provoking industrial action, misrepresenting research or failing to get a grip on the cost of agency staff in the NHS, which now amounts to £4 billion. Indeed, the Prime Minister’s own local NHS trust has overspent on staffing costs by £11 million this year, yet has managed to spend £30 million on agency staff. Will the chair of the Oxford anti-austerity campaign be writing another letter to himself on behalf of his constituents, asking for the Health Secretary to intervene to support his local NHS?

David Cameron: I am very proud of the NHS in Oxfordshire and everyone who works in it. Having met the head of the Oxford Radcliffe trust recently, I know that he supports the move towards more seven-day services. That is absolutely vital.

Carolyn Harris: Ask your mother!

David Cameron: Ask my mother? I know what my mother would say. She would look across the Dispatch Box and say, “Put on a proper suit, do up your tie and sing the national anthem.”

Jeremy Corbyn: If we are talking of motherly advice, my late mother would have said, “Stand up for the principle of a health service free at the point of use for everybody.” That is what she dedicated her life to, as did many of her generation.
	We are more than three quarters of the way into this financial year. The NHS deficit is already £2.26 billion, and 53% of NHS trust finance directors say that the quality of care in their local area has worsened this year. What will the deficit be by the end of next month?

David Cameron: We will get deficits down because we are clamping down on the staffing agencies and expensive management consultants, and introducing better public procurement.
	The right hon. Gentleman has to recognise that we said we would back the Simon Stevens plan, which meant at least £8 billion more going into the NHS, but we have put £10 billion more into the NHS. At the last election and subsequently, Labour has refused to back that extra money. My mother is as proud of the NHS as I am, and she would be pleased to know that in the NHS today, there are 1.9 million more people going to A&E, 1.6 million more operations, 10,700 more doctors and 11,800 more nurses. I think that if Nye Bevan were here today, he would want a seven-day NHS, because he knew that the NHS was for patients up and down our country.

Jeremy Corbyn: Nye Bevan would be turning in his grave if he could hear the Prime Minister’s attitude towards the NHS. He was a man with vision who wanted a health service for the good of all. I tell you, Mr Speaker, our health service is run by brilliant people—brilliant doctors, brilliant nurses and brilliant staff. I have a question for the Prime Minister from one of those brilliant doctors, whose name is Ashraf:
	“As a doctor I know full well the stresses on the NHS and the shortcomings. We already have a 7 day emergency service. How does increasing elective work improve safety at the weekend? If a truly 7 day NHS is wanted, we need more nurses, admin staff, porters, radiographers, physios”—
	all the other vital workers. Will the Prime Minister today commit to publishing the Department of Health’s analysis of the real cost of introducing a seven-day NHS? Is he prepared to pay for it, rather than picking a fight with the junior doctors who want to deliver it?

David Cameron: What I think is not clear is whether or not Labour supports a seven-day NHS. We support a seven-day NHS and that is why we are putting in £10 billion, 10,000 more doctors, and 11,000 more nurses. Crucially, yes, that is why we are looking at the contracts in the NHS to ensure that it can work on more of a seven-day basis. The truth is this that there are hospitals today in our country, such as the Salford Royal in the north-west of England, that already operate on a seven-day basis within existing budgets. That is good, because they are using all the equipment on a seven-day basis, they are carrying out consultations seven days a week and they carry out some operations seven days a week. That is good for the hospital, good for the staff working in it and, above all, good for patients. We do not just get ill Monday to Friday. I want a world-class NHS. We are funding a world-class NHS. We have world-class people working in our NHS and together we will build that seven-day NHS.

Chris Davies: With such a large number of schools in Brecon and Radnorshire facing the prospect of closure, what can my right hon. Friend do to encourage the Welsh Assembly to convert state schools into free schools and academies so that my constituents can benefit from the improvements to education that English pupils are seeing and so that we hopefully save these excellent schools from closure?

David Cameron: Obviously, education is devolved in Wales and the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly Government. I urge them to focus on how a good education depends not only on the finance, which is there because of the way that the Barnett formula works and because of the decisions we have taken about funding the NHS in England, but on high standards and the publication of league tables, so that people can see how their children are doing. Crucially, it requires structural reforms—free schools, academies—introducing some diversity and competition in getting organisations that are passionate about education to provide state education. We want all the best organisations in there providing the best education for our children.

Angus Robertson: May I begin by associating the Scottish National party with the comments made by the Prime Minister and the leader of the Labour party about the tragedy in Didcot? Our thoughts are with all those who have been affected.
	Will the Prime Minister congratulate the Scottish Government and his own colleagues who secured a deal on financial arrangements for the next phase of Scottish devolution? The Treasury position initially endangered £7 billion of public funding in Scotland. At the beginning of this week, that was reduced to £3 billion and yesterday morning it was £2.5 billion. What changed the mind of the Treasury and helped it agree to a deal that will make Scotland no worse off?

David Cameron: Let me agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is an excellent deal. It is an excellent deal for Scotland, but it is also an excellent deal for the United Kingdom. For those of us who want to keep the United Kingdom together, we have just demonstrated that we can have full-on devolution with a powerhouse Parliament and a fair fiscal settlement inside the United Kingdom, and that is something to be celebrated. Now we will move to a situation in which the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament will have to start talking about policies and decisions rather than processes. I am happy that the negotiations went as they did, I am happy that we have a good outcome, and I am happy that Lord Smith, who is responsible for so much of this work, put out a statement saying that this delivers Smith and the principles “in full”. No more grievance, no more fussing about process, no more arguments about the arrangements: now is the time to get on and govern.

Angus Robertson: We are indebted to Scotland’s Finance Secretary, John Swinney, and to First Minister Nicola Sturgeon for securing a no-detriment deal for Scotland. The Prime Minister is right that all parties will have to lay out their plans in advance of the May election, so will he answer this question? Is it true that in this time of austerity his party, the Conservative party, is planning tax cuts for higher earners in Scotland?

David Cameron: It will be Ruth Davidson, who is the only proper Opposition figure in Scotland, who will be sending out the plans. If someone in Scotland is worried about having a bit of a one-party state and a lack of accountability, and if they think that the Labour party in Scotland has lost its way, there is only one choice, and that is Ruth. I think there are opportunities to cut taxes, sharpen incentives and attract businesses and people into Scotland, and I am sure that Ruth will be making those arguments. As she does, and whatever she decides, she will have my full and unequivocal support.

Alberto Costa: A recent survey undertaken by Blaby District Council showed that 96% of the 1,100 residents surveyed were satisfied with my council’s services. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the Conservative leader of the council, Terry Richardson, his councillor colleagues, and all the officers in Blaby District Council who, while making savings that are necessary, are continuing to deliver a first-class service to the residents of South Leicestershire?

David Cameron: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in doing that, and he makes an important point. Yes, we had to make difficult spending decisions, not least over the past five years, but satisfaction with local government services actually went up. I think that proves a larger point, which is that we can reduce spending levels, find efficiencies, and provide better services at the same time.

Neil Gray: My constituent Frank Wason is on long-term sick leave due to severe depression, but he is no longer entitled to sick pay. He was turned down for employment and support allowance, and he cannot claim jobseeker’s allowance due to his job being kept open for him. Mr Wason cannot leave his highly skilled job as a chef due to the threat of punitive sanctions, leaving him with no income. Will the Prime Minister consider Mr Wason’s case specifically, as well as the wider issue of expecting people with mental health issues who are unable to work to live on fresh air?

David Cameron: I am happy to look at the individual case, because the way that our benefit system should work is clear: if someone is unable to work, but with help could work, they should go on to employment and support allowance and the work-related activity group and get that help. If they are unable to work, they go on to the support group and get a higher amount of money that is not means tested or time limited. For people who have mental health issues and difficulties there is the new personal independence payment system, which can address some of those issues. Quite rightly for a generous and compassionate country, we have a benefit system that supports those who cannot work, while ensuring that those who can work are encouraged to do so.

Maggie Throup: It is fantastic news that unemployment in my constituency has fallen by 62% since 2010, but I am committed to helping even more residents back into work as we work towards our target of full employment. That is why on 18 March I will be holding a community and jobs fair, bringing together employers and the voluntary sector, for residents to find out the many ways that they can get suitable employment and support from charities. I invite the Prime Minister to come along to that event and see for himself the resources that the residents of Erewash have.

David Cameron: I thank my hon. Friend. I am sure I will be touring the country quite a lot in the weeks to come, and perhaps a visit to Erewash would be very worth while. I have visited her constituency before. We now have a much lower unemployment rate, and looking across Europe, our rate of just above 5% is one of the lowest in Europe. Even at that rate, there is still a lot more to do to match the jobs that are being created to the people who want to work, and jobs fairs, apprenticeships and training programmes are absolutely essential so that we deliver on what we promised, which is full employment.

Ian Blackford: The Prime Minister likes to go on about the importance of returning sovereignty to this House. May I remind him that on 7 January we debated the women’s state pension and the fact that women are being discriminated against by the pace of the state pension increase. The House divided that day with 158 votes to zero, and it asked the Government to mitigate the effects of that measure. Why have the Government not respected the sovereignty of the vote of this Parliament?

David Cameron: First, I would argue very strongly that we are not discriminating against women. We are ensuring that there is an equal age of retirement, which is right. Women have been discriminated against in the pension system in the past, and the single-tier pension means that many more women will be retiring with a full pension. As they do so, they have the triple lock of knowing that pensions will always go up by wages, prices or 2.5%, whichever is the highest. That is why pensioner poverty is at a record low, and why pensioners know that they can live in security and dignity in our country.

Craig Mackinlay: South Thanet lags behind much of the south-east across very many indices. I have launched a new body locally, the Ramsgate regeneration alliance, which brings together businesses and community groups. May I invite my right hon. Friend and the Minister responsibility for coastal communities to this gem on our doorstep to see for themselves what it could and indeed should be?

David Cameron: I am very happy to put Ramsgate on my tour list for the coming months. We all remember the historic battle my hon. Friend fought in that constituency. We have set up the coastal communities fund and have a dedicated Minister in the Government to try to help coastal communities. I will make sure that officials from his Department meet the new alliance and the Ramsgate coastal community team to see what they can do to help.

Tulip Siddiq: For two years, my constituents and I campaigned against the development of a luxury skyscraper. The local councillors listened and rejected the plans, but then the Conservative Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government called in the decision and overturned the wishes of the community, showing utter disrespect for local democracy. The Prime Minister preaches localism, but will he finally admit that his Government believe only in the devolution of blame for cuts, not the devolution of actual power to local communities?

David Cameron: We have a long-standing system not only for local planning but for being able to call in decisions. That system operated the whole time under the previous Labour Government. If anything, our local planning system is actually putting more power in the hands of local people, because once they have completed their local plan it is then much easier to say yes to developments that are within that plan and no to developments that are outside it.

Huw Merriman: Last Friday, I made separate visits to three families, all of whom have a child suffering from acute mental health difficulties that the families felt had not been adequately assessed at the early stages by child and adolescent mental health services. Colleagues from across the Chamber will be all too familiar with such visits. I welcome the Prime Minister’s recent commitment to reform mental health provision for young people. Will he consider reviewing the provision of initial stage treatment and continue to be the champion for these vulnerable and brave children?

David Cameron: Let me thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is right that children and young people’s mental health is a priority for the Government. I think we can all agree across this House that for many years this area has not had adequate attention or adequate investment. I would highlight in particular the problems of psychosis, sometimes caused by drug use. I would also raise the huge problem of eating disorders; we are seeing a rapid increase in the number of people suffering. We have gone a long way in increasing the number of talking therapies. Something like 740,000 more people are accessing those therapies than when the Government came into office. We recognise that there is more to be done and that is why we are investing £1.4 billion in system-wide transformation across child and adolescent mental health services.

Richard Arkless: Last week, Scottish Power refused to attend an evidence session with the all-party parliamentary group on Scottish Power cashback mis-selling, where crucial new evidence was uncovered. As a former consumer litigator, I am utterly convinced that more than 2,000 of my constituents and more than 500,000 people in the UK are owed cashback from Scottish Power. Given that this is potentially a scandal of huge proportions, will the Prime Minister agree to meet me and the cross-party group to discuss how we can ensure that these ordinary hard-working people receive the cashback they were promised from Scottish Power?

David Cameron: I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised this. It has been raised on previous occasions by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) and I know the cross-party group has done some very useful work. My understanding is that any alleged wrongdoing should be fully investigated. Ofgem can impose fines if it finds companies have breached their licence. I am very happy to arrange for a meeting between him and other members of the all-party group with the relevant Ministers in the Department of Energy and Climate Change, so that we can try to get this fixed.

Michael Ellis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that with the NATO summit in Warsaw pending, the threat of expansionism from Putin’s Russia and the national security threat from Daesh, the Government are right to support putting 2% of our GDP towards defence? Is he not shocked at the failure of the Labour party to do likewise?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point—we face an insecure and unstable world, particularly given what Putin has done in the Ukraine and particularly in view of what we see in Syria. That is why I think 2% spending on defence and making sure we renew our nuclear deterrent is the right answer.
	To be fair to the Labour party, it has an answer. It is not going to spend 2% and it is not going to renew our Trident submarines, but it has come up with a really brilliant answer. They are bringing back as their spokesman and spin doctor Damian McBride. Six months ago, the Leader of the Opposition said:
	“We can win in 2020, but only if we spend the next five years building this movement and putting forward a vision for the new kind of politics: honest, kinder and more caring.”
	Six months on, Damian McBride is back. That says it all. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Colleagues are calling for more; there will be more.

Imran Hussain: Last week, together with several of my hon. Friends, I visited Palestine, where we went to the home of Nora and her family, who have lived in the old city of East Jerusalem since 1953. Israeli settlers, however, are now trying to force Nora from her home of over 60 years. There are many other cases like that. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that illegal settlements and constructions are a major roadblock that hinder peaceful negotiations? What are this Government doing to help prevent these infringements into Palestinian lives and land?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman’s question is incredibly important. I am well known as a strong friend of Israel, but I have to say that the first time I visited Jerusalem, had a proper tour around that wonderful city and saw what has happened with the effective encirclement of East Jerusalem—occupied East Jerusalem— I found it genuinely shocking. What this Government have consistently done and go on doing is to say that we are supporters of Israel, but we do not support illegal settlements and we do not support what is happening in East Jerusalem. It is very important for this capital city to be maintained in the way it was in the past.

Kelly Tolhurst: One of my constituents, Alex Bagnall, is fighting to have his son brought back to the UK after he was taken to Poland by the mother illegally, as per The Hague convention. Will the Prime Minister outline what interventions the Government can make on the EU and Polish authorities with regard to The Hague convention in order to help British families with the safe return of their abducted children, offering hope to devastated families such as my constituents, the Bagnalls?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise a case like this. Sadly, there are far too many of them in our country. The straight answer is that the return decision is, of course, for the Polish court, and Governments cannot interfere in the decisions or processes of another country’s justice system. However, we have the International Child Abduction and Contact Unit at the Ministry of Justice, and it has been in constant touch with Mr Bagnall. It is processing his paperwork and chasing its counterparts in Poland for information. I will make sure that the Foreign Secretary is made aware of this case and does everything he can to help my hon. Friend and her constituent.

Callum McCaig: Oil and gas has contributed over £300 billion to Treasury coffers. The Scottish Government, trade unions and Oil and Gas UK are calling for reductions to the headline rate of tax to support the industry in its hour of need. Yet instead of the so-called “broad shoulders” of the UK, what we see are the slopey shoulders of the Prime Minister, repeatedly dodging his responsibilities. Will he commit to reduce the tax level on oil and gas, and support this vital industry?

David Cameron: In the Budget last year, we reduced the burden of tax on oil and gas—something that we were able to do because of the broad shoulders of the UK. Now let us just examine what has happened since that time. Oil and gas revenues are down by 94%. If it were not for the broad shoulders of the UK Government and if instead this was a genuinely fiscally independent Scotland, there would be a massive black hole in its budget, and it would be cutting welfare, cutting spending, putting up taxes and facing a financial catastrophe.

Nusrat Ghani: Every week two women are killed in England and Wales by a current or former partner. The perpetrator is the problem: the question is not “Why doesn’t she leave?” but “Why doesn’t he stop?” The Sussex police and crime commissioner is piloting a programme called Drive, which aims to change the behaviour of offenders. In advance of his new strategy to tackle violence against women and girls, will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Katy Bourne on tackling domestic violence throughout Sussex?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that issue. We have got better at tackling the crime of domestic violence, but there is still so much more to do. Katy Bourne, whom I know, does an excellent job as the police and crime commissioner. I think that police and crime commissioners, who have a higher profile than police authorities ever had, can give a real lead on this sort of thing, and I urge others around the country to do exactly that. We also need to make sure that we are policing these incidents properly, and we need to change the culture, but I think that police and crime commissioners such as Katy Bourne can help to lead the way.

Nigel Dodds: As the Prime Minister knows, resources were ring-fenced following the fresh start agreement in November to help Northern Ireland to deal with legacy cases. Will the Prime Minister consider releasing some of that money—this has been hinted at by the Secretary of State—to help the Police Service of Northern Ireland as it faces increasing pressures on front-line policing? Will he also take this opportunity to reaffirm that there will be no rewriting of the past in Northern Ireland to legitimatise terrorism, or to promote a pernicious narrative that tries to make the security forces equivalent to terrorists?

David Cameron: The fresh start agreement was a good agreement, and an important part of it was dealing with legacy cases and ensuring that they were dealt with more quickly. To me, it has always been about trying to heal the hurt of the legacy cases rather than trying to write new narratives.
	I shall consider carefully what the right hon. Gentleman has said about resources. We need to make sure that the policing of Northern Ireland continues to be properly resourced, not least because we still face a terrorist threat today.

Owen Paterson: The United Kingdom endorses the Code of Good Practice on Referendums, published by the European Commission for Democracy through Law, which states:
	“Equality of opportunity must be guaranteed for the supporters and opponents of the proposal being voted on.”
	It also states:
	“Equality must be ensured in terms of public subsidies and other forms of backing.”
	Yesterday, Sir Jeremy Heywood sent a letter to Departments preventing Ministers from having access to civil service briefings. Has the Prime Minister checked whether that letter was compatible with the guidelines on neutrality?

David Cameron: I am very happy with the letter that was sent out, for this reason. The Government have a position on this issue: the Government’s position is that we would be better off in a reformed European Union. Ministers are able to depart from that position, and campaign in a personal capacity. That is, I think, a very important statement. It is right in terms of how we go about it, but it does not mean that the Government are neutral. It does not mean that the civil service is neutral. The Government have a policy from which people can depart.
	As for the funding of the referendum campaign, we now have very clear laws and rules in place—and the Electoral Commission—to make sure that both campaigns are funded properly, and I think that that is good for our democracy.

Scotland’s Fiscal Framework

David Mundell: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the new fiscal framework for Scotland, which was agreed yesterday by the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments.
	I begin by paying tribute to everyone who has worked so hard to arrive at this point: my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Deputy First Minister of Scotland, John Swinney, who have led these negotiations with skill; my colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, Lord Dunlop, whose contribution has been invaluable; and the dedicated teams of officials from Her Majesty’s Treasury and the Scottish Government who have worked tirelessly on behalf of their respective Governments. They can be proud of what has been achieved and the service they have given.
	This is a truly historic deal that will pave the way for the Scottish Parliament to become one of the most powerful and accountable devolved Parliaments in the world. We have respected all the principles set out in the cross-party Smith agreement and delivered a deal that is fair for Scotland and fair for the whole United Kingdom. As Lord Smith said himself yesterday evening:
	“When the Smith Agreement was passed to the Prime Minister and First Minister both gave their word that they would deliver it into law—they have met that promise in full”.
	Scotland’s two Governments will give more details in the coming days, but I would like to set out a few key elements of the deal.
	The Scottish Government will retain all the revenue from the taxes that are being devolved or assigned, including around £12 billion of income tax and around £5 billion of VAT. The Scottish Government block grant will be adjusted to reflect the devolution and assignment of further taxes and the devolution of further spending responsibilities. We have kept our commitment to retain the Barnett formula, extending it to cover areas of devolved welfare. For tax, we will use the UK Government’s preferred funding model. Under that model the Scottish Government hold all Scotland-specific risks in relation to devolved and assigned taxes, just like they do for devolved spending under the Barnett formula. That is fair to Scotland and fair to the rest of the UK.
	However, for a transitional period covering the next Scottish Parliament, the Governments have agreed to share those Scotland-specific risks as these powers are implemented. Specifically, the Scottish Government will hold the economic risks while the UK Government will hold the population risks, so the Scottish Government will not receive a penny less than Barnett funding over the course of the spending review simply due to different population growth. By the end of 2021, a review of the framework will be informed by an independent report so we can ensure that we are continuing to deliver Smith in full, with the Scottish Government being responsible for the full range of opportunities and risks associated with their new responsibilities.
	We have also agreed that the Scottish Government will have additional new borrowing powers. That will ensure that the Scottish Government can manage their budget effectively and invest up to £3 billion in vital infrastructure. In line with the recommendation of the Smith agreement, we will provide the Scottish Government with £200 million to set up the new powers they will control.
	The Government have delivered more powers to the Scottish people, ensuring that they have one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world and the economic and national security that comes from being part of our United Kingdom. That is what we have agreed and that is what we have delivered in full. Now that we have agreed this historic devolution deal, the conversation must move on to how these new powers are to be used.
	The Scottish Government will have extensive powers on tax, welfare and spending. They will have control over income tax and be able to change the rates and thresholds. They will be able to create new benefits, and of course the permanence of the Scottish Parliament is put beyond any doubt.
	The people of Scotland voted for these new powers, and they deserve to hear from the parties in Scotland how they will use them. They are new powers that, if used well, can grow Scotland’s economy, and indeed population, and bring greater opportunity and prosperity. Now that we have agreed this fiscal framework, I hope and trust that this House and the other place will welcome it, while of course subjecting it to full scrutiny. I commend this statement to the House.

Ian Murray: I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of his statement, and indeed for coming to the House yesterday to indicate he would be making it today. I begin by welcoming unequivocally the news that an agreement has been reached on the fiscal framework, and I would also like to echo the thanks to both Governments, the Deputy First Minister, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who is in his place, and of course the Secretary of State himself for working so hard to secure this historic deal. Our heartfelt thanks also go out to the officials of both Governments, who we all know are the people who do the real work in these negotiations.
	Yesterday’s agreement marks the removal of the final obstacle to the transfer of significant and substantial powers to Scotland, and, as Lord Smith himself has said, the agreement
	“sees the recommendations of the Smith commission delivered in full.”
	Importantly, the vow stipulated clearly that the Barnett formula should remain the key mechanism for calculating Scotland’s budget. That has now been agreed and Barnett has been secured.
	I note the Secretary of State’s commitment to publishing details of the agreement by the end of this week, and I welcome that commitment, but can he indicate whether this House will have time to scrutinise the agreement in detail? I have been saying for some time that greater transparency is required in the way these deals are negotiated. This process has highlighted the fact that future intergovernmental relationships must be improved to make these powers work for Scotland. Lord Smith’s recommendations that both Governments need
	“to work together to create a more productive, robust, visible and transparent relationship”
	and that the Joint Ministerial Committee
	“must be reformed as a matter of urgency”
	echo in this process. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this will be done?
	We all know that the major stumbling block was the indexation method used for the block grant adjustment. Under the compromise reached, there will be a five-year transitional period, which will cover the full term of the next Scottish Parliament. Towards the end of that period, an independent review and recommendation will be published that will form the basis of a more permanent solution. When he gave evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s devolution Committee last night, the Secretary of State suggested that the period between the review being published and the transitional period ending at the end of March 2022 could be as little as 12 weeks. If no agreement is reached, what happens then?
	On the transitional period itself, it is my understanding that the Scottish Fiscal Commission will carry out the necessary forecasts of Scottish GDP and tax revenues. Can the Secretary of State confirm that, under the terms of the fiscal framework negotiations, those forecasts will be fully independent of the Scottish Government? Last week, the Scottish Finance Committee voted against allowing for that independence.
	There also seems to be some confusion over the block grant adjustment during the transitional period to 2022. The First Minister said it would be done according to the Treasury’s favoured method but with the Scottish Government’s favoured outcome. Can the Secretary of State confirm what method will be used? Will it be the catchily named tax capacity adjusted levels deduction, which I understand was the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s latest offer?
	Further clarity is also needed on the timeframe for the devolution of powers. The Secretary of State has said that the new income tax powers will be available by April 2017. However, the Deputy First Minister has said he does not agree that that timeframe is realistic. Is the Secretary of State able to confirm that the new tax powers will be transferred by April 2017?
	Today the Scottish Government are passing the Scottish budget. Twelve months from now, at the time of the next Scottish budget, we want them to have full control of income tax and air passenger duty and the deployment of 50% of Scotland’s VAT revenues. We also want them to have the considerable powers over welfare, which will allow us to design a new social security system for Scotland.
	I welcome the review and the fact that it will be fully independent. I have stated several times that impartial oversight and, if necessary, arbitration should be an established part of intergovernmental relations. Will the Secretary of State tell us how the review body will be chosen, and can he confirm that it will be done in a spirit of consensus with the full agreement of both Governments? Will he also tell us to what extent the recommendations of the review will influence the decision taken on the long-term solution for block grant adjustment?
	I close by welcoming once again the agreement that has been reached. Today marks an historic date in Scotland’s devolution journey: the creation of one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world. The promises made to Scotland in 2014 have been met—the Smith agreement implemented, Barnett protected, powers transferred, the vow delivered. Scottish politics will never be the same again thanks to these new powers. We have entered a new and exciting era of devolution. What an opportunity to transform Scotland for everyone—an opportunity that my party will grasp with both hands.

David Mundell: I agree with most of what the hon. Gentleman said about the opportunity this presents to change Scottish politics. I think the people of Scotland want us to move on from discussing process to discussing policies and the difference that we can make for them with these extensive new powers. It is my full expectation that the agreement and associated details should be available tomorrow, and I very much hope that that will afford the maximum amount of scrutiny. It will of course be open to Committees of this House to scrutinise the arrangements as they see fit.
	For understandable reasons, the hon. Gentleman makes reference to intergovernmental relations, but it is important to look at what Lord Smith said about how this agreement was arrived at. He said:
	“It is difficult to imagine a bigger test of inter-governmental relationships and while it was obviously a very tough negotiation, what matters is that an agreement was reached.
	He continued:
	“This provides an excellent basis for constructive engagement between the governments long into the future.”
	I accept that fully. I believe that when the transition period is over and the independent reports have been published, it will be possible for the Governments to reach agreement.
	The hon. Gentleman has asked many times why it has taken so long, but many important agreements are reached at the eleventh hour, just by the very nature of doing a deal. I am sure that we will be able, on the basis we have set out, to ensure that that is the case at the end of the transitional period. The independent review, to which he referred, will indeed be a matter for agreement between the two Governments, but as he is well aware, many people in Scotland hold themselves out as being independent but are perhaps not as independent as they superficially seem. It is therefore important that there is agreement between the two Governments as to how that independent review should go forward.
	On the Fiscal Commission, the agreement with the Scottish Government is that its forecasts will be fully independent. Finally, this Government will place no impediment on the transfer of powers. Obviously we cannot impose the income tax powers on the Scottish Government, and we would not seek to do so, but I would have thought and hoped that they would want to take them on as soon as possible, and that is the end to which we will be working.

Kenneth Clarke: First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his apparent success in achieving a settlement of this difficult issue—we look forward to the details tomorrow. Can he assure the House that when the settlement is implemented, it will not only give a strong Scottish Government the powers they need to conduct their devolved affairs properly, but do nothing whatever to impair the ability of United Kingdom Governments to maintain financial discipline and healthy public finances for the British economy? That, surely, is an essential condition for the future growth and prosperity of the English, British, Welsh, Irish—United Kingdom—economy.

David Mundell: I am very happy to give my right hon. and learned Friend the assurance he seeks. The Scottish fiscal framework will be consistent with the UK fiscal framework.

Angus Robertson: May I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and indeed for the conversations he had yesterday, given the constraints of parliamentary time and being able to make a statement only today? We appreciate his having done so.
	I speak on behalf of all Scottish National party Members in welcoming the agreement on the fiscal framework, and we all look forward to the draft heads of agreement being published for parliamentary scrutiny in this place and in the Scottish Parliament later this week. My SNP colleagues in the Scottish Government were clear throughout these protracted negotiations that they would not sign a deal that included a threat to the Scottish budget. Members on the SNP Benches here, too, pursued the UK Government’s commitment to the principle of “no detriment”, a promise made during the Smith commission negotiations and a promise that the SNP has ensured has been delivered.
	When negotiations began, Scotland’s budget faced a threat from the Treasury of a cut of £7 billion. This week, it was £3 billion, and yesterday morning it was £2.5 billion, but last night my colleagues in the Scottish Government secured a deal that will ensure that Scotland will not be a pound or even a penny worse off, and that the new powers that were promised will be delivered. I pay tribute to the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, and the Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, for their efforts to stand up for Scotland and for being stronger for Scotland.
	I welcome the fact that the UK Government will guarantee that the outcome of the Scottish Government’s preferred funding model—the per capita indexed deduction—is delivered in each of the next six years. I understand that a transitional funding arrangement will be reviewed following the UK and Scottish parliamentary elections in 2020 and 2021 respectively. The review will be informed by an independent report, with recommendations presented to both Governments by the end of 2021. In that context, let me say this: the Smith report was crystal clear that the fiscal framework had to be agreed by both the UK and Scottish Governments. The Treasury tried to engineer an agreement that would have allowed it to impose a model of indexation in five years’ time—those are the facts of the matter. That would have seen billions cut from Scotland’s budget. Let me therefore ask the Secretary of State the following questions: will he confirm that the Treasury no longer has the power to impose a method of indexation? Will he confirm that the review will go ahead without prejudice to the outcome? And will he confirm that there is no default indexation option and that the Scottish Government’s agreement is required before any new indexation model can be adopted?

David Mundell: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for welcoming the parts of the agreement that he did. This has been a negotiation, and this is the point arrived at in the agreement; it is not possible for the Treasury or the UK Government to have engineered an agreement, as what was needed was the agreement of the Scottish Government, and that is what has been achieved. The two parties have been able to reach an agreement on a fiscal framework that is both fair to Scotland and fair to the people of Scotland.
	I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the review will go ahead on an independent basis, without prejudice or a predetermined outcome, and it will be concluded by the end of 2021. There will be no imposition of any formula at the end of that period, and what happens will be by way of agreement. As I said in my previous comments, when I quoted what Lord Smith said, I believe that this process, through some of the most difficult types of negotiation, gives us confidence that in a maturing relationship the UK Government and the Scottish Government will be able to reach such an agreement.

John Redwood: Extrapolating recent population trends, what is the additional cost to England, Wales and Northern Ireland of the transitional arrangements on population?

David Mundell: There will be no additional cost to England, Wales and Northern Ireland from the powers being transferred compared with if we were not proceeding with this devolution settlement, because the sum being delivered to the Scottish Government is exactly the same as would have been delivered under the Barnett formula.

Catherine McKinnell: The Scottish Government have committed to halving air passenger duty in 2018, if still in government. That leaves Newcastle airport, in my constituency, most at risk from cross-border tax competition. Following today’s statement, when can we expect a decision from the Government on support for regional airports, as promised by the Prime Minister? Ongoing uncertainty is very damaging to regional economies, and an approach of “wait and see” is not acceptable.

David Mundell: I note what the hon. Lady says. Of course people in Scotland will know that the SNP position used to be to abolish air passenger duty completely, so there is somewhat of a change there. None the less, she makes an important point. There is a review, and I am sure that those issues will be considered as the Budget process goes ahead in this Parliament.

Edward Leigh: Is not the measure of statesmanship the imagination to give to others what one demands for oneself? For centuries, the English have demanded full control over our spending and taxation. Why should the Scottish people feel any different? Does the Secretary of State not realise that there must be some merit in the argument that as long as we maintain the outmoded, outdated and unfair Barnett formula, which thoroughly disadvantages the English, we will simply stoke up resentment on both sides of the border, and that will ultimately lead to more calls for independence?

David Mundell: My hon. Friend, as we well know, is the staunchest advocate of full fiscal freedom in this Chamber—more staunchly so than those on the SNP Benches when he moved his amendment for complete fiscal freedom. My response is that the people of Scotland would not respond well to having a £10 billion annual black hole in their finances, and that full fiscal freedom is not the answer. Further devolution as set out in the Scotland Bill to create a powerhouse Parliament is what the people of Scotland want and it is what this Government are delivering.

Pete Wishart: Let me congratulate all the parties involved on managing to agree on a position that got us here, which is that principle of no detriment. I also thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Deputy First Minister for attending the Scottish Affairs Committee. I hope that the Chief Secretary will agree to attend the Committee again to explain a little bit more about the details of this fiscal framework. At the beginning of the process, we heard that the Treasury intended to cut £7 billion from the Scottish budget. Why did the Treasury intend to cut billions of pounds from the Scottish budget, and what did he, as the Secretary of State for Scotland, attempt to do about it?

David Mundell: I know the hon. Gentleman does not understand the concept of negotiation, in which two sides work together to get an agreement. Assertion and soundbites sound good, but they do not deliver for the people of Scotland. What delivers for the people of Scotland is the two Governments working together to produce a sustainable agreement. That is what we have done; we have an agreement that underpins the Scotland Bill, which means that Scotland can get these extensive new powers over tax and welfare. People will now want to move on from the process debate to hear the policy ideas.

Maggie Throup: During the inquiry of the Scottish Affairs Committee into the fiscal framework, we asked searching questions of our witnesses about the new welfare powers that have been devolved to Scotland. Has my right hon. Friend heard any details from the Scottish Government about how they plan to use the new welfare powers?

David Mundell: I very much welcome the fact that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have indicated that they do plan to set out how they intend to use the powers. It was interesting to hear some of the media reports in Scotland that suggest that the SNP plans to increase significantly the tax burden on middle income earners in Scotland. Obviously, we will have to await the detail in the manifesto. What is the case is that there will be no excuses now. SNP Members can come here and complain about certain welfare changes, but they will have the ability within Scotland to set their own welfare arrangements.

Jonathan Edwards: The Scottish Government have been able to achieve their chosen deduction method through their vigorous and skilled negotiation strategy. What advice will the Secretary of State give to the Welsh Government when it comes to negotiating the fiscal framework for Wales? Does he think that the Labour Government’s usual passive compliance with the Treasury will work?

David Mundell: What I am clear about is that the position in Wales will be as it is in Scotland: the people of Wales will benefit most when the Welsh Government and the United Kingdom Government work constructively together for their benefit.

Alberto Costa: Is it not time that we heard from the Scottish Government detailed plans to devolve power down to the Scottish communities? Devolution should not stop at Holyrood.

David Mundell: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that he will have read my speech of 21 December delivered in Glasgow City chambers making exactly the case for devolution within Scotland. Unfortunately, in recent times, Scotland has become one of the most centralised countries in terms of government. The new Scottish Government that will be elected in May should devolve further powers. The best way to achieve that is to elect more Conservative MSPs under Ruth Davidson’s leadership.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: How great it is to follow that remark from the Secretary of State!
	How does the amount agreed by the UK Government for the implementation costs compare with the Government’s current calculations for implementing the deal agreed at last week’s EU summit on benefits for foreign workers in the UK?

David Mundell: I welcome the hon. Lady’s question, because of course she and I were both Scottish Conservative candidates for the Scottish Parliament in the dim and distant past—[Interruption.] I am sure that the detail of this agreement and the issues that she raises will stand up to scrutiny.

Mr Speaker: Order. It is a moderately unedifying spectacle when such large numbers of Members are quite so vociferous. The saving grace is that all of them do have a very notable smile on their face, so at least there is good humour in the Chamber.

Alan Mak: rose—

Mr Speaker: Mr Mak, you wish to give the House the benefit of your views.

Alan Mak: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Does he agree that the conclusion of this new agreement shows that Scotland’s two Governments can work together? Will he undertake to keep pressing the Scottish Government to reveal details of how they will use these new powers?

David Mundell: I certainly do agree with my hon. Friend, and I have, on a number of occasions in this Chamber, paid particular and sincere tribute to the Deputy First Minister of Scotland, John Swinney. He and I have had numerous conversations throughout this process and, although at times we have been in disagreement, they have always been cordial and civil. That is the basis of the relationship that I want to see with the Scottish Government. My hon. Friend is right: what this agreement means is that the Scotland Bill can pass through this House and, hopefully, receive the legislative consent motion at Holyrood. There will then be no hiding place on these issues for the Scottish Government. If they want to spend more, they will have the tax powers to do so, and if they want higher welfare, they will have the ability to achieve that.

Tommy Sheppard: My constituents will welcome this agreement. In particular, they will welcome the fact that the Scottish Government were able to persuade the Treasury to abandon its initial position, which would have meant £7 billion of cuts to Scottish finances, and to come to the Smith position that there should be no detriment. They will observe though that had that been the original position for the Treasury, we might have been able to get this agreement before Christmas rather than spend all this time on it. Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is now the case, beyond doubt, that the principle of no detriment to the Scottish budget is enshrined in his Government’s thinking both now and in the future?

David Mundell: Yes, as is the other element of the Smith commission consideration of no detriment, which is taxpayer fairness—not just in Scotland, but across the UK.

David Mowat: The vow was very clear that Barnett would be retained. That has been done, and rightly so. The starting point for public spending in Scotland now is 115% of the UK average. Can the Secretary of State tell the House, in terms of his modelling, what that percentage per capita will be at the end of this Parliament?

David Mundell: As my hon. Friend asks for complex calculations, I will certainly be happy to write to him in that regard. Although I respect his strongly held views in relation to the Barnett formula, I have to say that the Government’s clear position is that the Barnett formula is being retained.

Debbie Abrahams: Following yesterday’s devastating votes on the Lords amendments to the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, can the Secretary of State say a little more about when welfare powers will be transferred to Scotland, so that at least in Scotland we can do something to prevent the appalling effects of poverty on children and disabled people?

David Mundell: Obviously, I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s perspective on specific policies, but she is right that the Scottish Parliament will now have specific and detailed responsibilities in relation to welfare. We have a joint ministerial group on welfare, which includes myself and Scottish Ministers Alex Neil and Roseanna Cunningham, and we look to work though that group on the transfer of the specific powers. We do not want a transfer of power without new arrangements being in place, because the people in receipt of the benefits must be our prime concern. We will work closely together. An enormous amount of work has been done by officials to date and I am confident that once we know what the Scottish Government’s proposals are—we do not know fully--we will be able to make an effective transition.

George Kerevan: In his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), the Secretary of State seemed to confirm that the Treasury’s opening bid in these negotiations—the so-called level deductions approach, which would have led to a £7 billion cumulative cut in Scottish spending—was merely a negotiating ploy. If that is the case, will the
	Secretary of State confirm that it was disrespectful of the negotiations to start with a position so far from the vow, and will he confirm that that will never happen again?

David Mundell: What complete and utter nonsense. A deal is done that is good for Scotland and good for the United Kingdom, and hon. Members on the Scottish National party Benches have to trawl through newspaper reports to find something that they can complain about. This is a good deal for Scotland which gives Scotland new powers. Let us talk about how we use those powers for the benefit of Scotland, and let us put the grievance agenda to bed once and for all.

Jonathan Reynolds: I have no desire to sour the tone of consensus on an historic day for Scotland, but many of my constituents believe that the funding arrangements for Scotland, and specifically the operation of the Barnett formula, are unfair to northern England. Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that grievance and how does the new fiscal framework change that?

David Mundell: I acknowledge that people have those feelings. A number of people on both sides of the House have raised issues about the Barnett formula. That is their job as representatives of different parts of the United Kingdom. My position is clear: the Barnett formula is good for Scotland, and this Government are keeping the Barnett formula.

Patrick Grady: Can the Secretary of State name some of the devolved assemblies around the world that will now be less powerful than the Scottish Parliament?

David Mundell: I can produce a list and send it to the hon. Gentleman. I am not focused on other assemblies around the world. I am focused on the Scottish Parliament and making it a powerhouse Parliament with the powers that make a difference in Scotland. That is the state of the debate. The hon. Gentleman’s constituents will not want to hear about Parliaments in South America and other parts of the world: they will want to hear about what his party intends to do on income tax and welfare.

Kirsty Blackman: We have had a particularly mild November, December and January because the Secretary of State for Scotland promised the Scottish Affairs Committee an agreement by the autumn. Can he let us know when he expects the Bill to complete its passage through the House of Lords; when he expects it to come back to the House of Commons; and when he expects it to get Royal Assent?

David Mundell: In respect of the first two questions, I expect that to be March. I hope Royal Assent will be achievable in March but it may be April. I am also respectful of the Scottish Parliament process and the need for a legislative consent motion.

Margaret Ferrier: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I note that he mentions the UK Government holding population risks. Will he concede that the limited powers available to the Scottish Government do not allow for population growth? Will he now listen to calls for a Scottish post-study work scheme?

David Mundell: On the latter subject, I have had the pleasure of appearing before the Scottish Affairs Committee and being grilled by the hon. Lady on the issue of student work visas. I made it clear that I would look closely at the report produced by the Committee, and I repeat that undertaking. However, I do not accept the premise of her question. I believe that, properly used, the tax and other powers that the Scottish Government have will allow them to grow the Scottish economy, create jobs and grow the population of Scotland.

Gavin Newlands: The Secretary of State talks about negotiations. This is an important point. When the Treasury first considered making £7 billion worth of cuts to the Scottish budget, can the Secretary of State—Scotland’s man in the Cabinet—tell us what personal interventions he made to the Treasury to protect Scotland?

David Mundell: I have been closely involved in these discussions throughout, but they are negotiations—they are not about the Treasury imposing. As Lord Smith recognises, they are about the two Governments coming together in difficult circumstances to negotiate about money, which is often the most contentious thing that is ever the subject of negotiations. We have demonstrated that both Governments had the maturity to reach a deal which is good for Scotland and good for the rest of the United Kingdom.

Patricia Gibson: The Secretary of State for Scotland has just confirmed that the initial proposal put forward by the Treasury of a £7 billion cut to Scotland’s budget was not an opening negotiation position, but a serious proposal. In the light of that, does he consider himself Scotland’s man in the Cabinet, or the Cabinet’s man in Scotland?

David Mundell: What complete and utter nonsense. This was a negotiation. Of course, it was conducted not by SNP MPs, but by John Swinney, who adopted a completely different tone—a civil and cordial tone—throughout. I respect his objective of getting the best deal for Scotland. That is my objective too, but we had to get an agreement, and we got one. It is a good agreement. It is an opportunity to move away from the grievance agenda, but this afternoon’s proceedings leave me in doubt that, even with these extensive new powers, the SNP will be able to leave that grievance agenda behind.

Callum McCaig: The Secretary of State has repeatedly criticised the SNP for allegedly failing to set out how it will use the new powers contained in the legislation, yet barely an hour ago the Prime Minister floundered badly when asked whether the Scottish Conservatives would reduce the tax rate on high earners. I am sure the Secretary of State will want to avoid suggestions of hypocrisy and extend his criticism to his boss.

David Mundell: I have nothing but admiration for Ruth Davidson. She is the one person in the Scottish Parliament who can stand up to the SNP and hold it to account. If people do not want a one-party state in Scotland, the way to achieve that is by voting Scottish Conservative. The Prime Minister did not flounder; he told us exactly what the position was. Ruth will set out the tax proposals and they certainly will not be the same as the SNP’s proposals, revealed in the Scottish press today to hit middle earners hard.

Points of Order

Ian Blackford: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. With your forbearance, I would like to raise a matter that was addressed in the Adjournment debate on Monday evening. During the debate, I asked the Minister about negotiations that might have taken place ahead of a proposal to allow ship-to-ship transfers in the Cromarty firth. Specifically, I asked whether Marine Scotland, representing the Scottish Government, had been consulted. The Minister replied:
	“The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber mentioned the Cromarty firth oil transfer licence. Marine Scotland was directly consulted on 10 December, and on 8 February, when the consultation ended, it had not responded. When it was asked whether it intended to respond, the answer was no. I hope that that clarifies that point.”—[Official Report, 22 February 2016; Vol. 606, c. 123.]
	That was a very clear statement, and I was very surprised to hear the Minister make it, because I would have expected that Marine Scotland, on behalf of the Scottish Government, had responded to the consultation. I therefore checked the situation with the Scottish Government and received the following response:
	“The Scottish Government is not aware of being directly approached by the UK Government during the consultation on the Cromarty Firth Oil Transfers. Marine Scotland was made aware of the proposal through informal contact by the Port of Cromarty Firth.”
	It is safe to say that Marine Scotland was not contacted by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency or by the UK Government.
	That is a very worrying statement, because it leaves open the suggestion that the Government have perhaps been economical with the truth at the very least in what has been said in the House. That is a very serious matter, not least because of the potential threat to people in my community of ship-to-ship transfers taking place, and of the Scottish Government not being adequately consulted on their responsibilities for environmental protection. I therefore seek your advice, Mr Speaker, on how I may deal with this matter and whether it would be appropriate for the Minister to correct the record.

Mr Speaker: It is open to any Member who believes that he or she has made a mistake to correct the record voluntarily. It is not the responsibility of the Chair to arbitrate between competing claims about a sequence of events, and nor is it my responsibility to interpret what the Minister might have meant in responding to the hon. Gentleman at the time. The hon. Gentleman has made his point with force and alacrity—we would expect no less of him. If the Secretary of State wishes to respond, he is perfectly at liberty to do so, but he is under no obligation.

David Mundell: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said and will have the matter investigated.

Mr Speaker: The Secretary of State has kindly said that he will have the matter investigated. I ought to emphasise, for the avoidance of doubt, that he was not the Minister who answered in the debate. I hope that the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) is satisfied with his prodigious efforts for the day and that we might now move on to other fare. I know that he will be absolutely delighted that we can now move on to the ten-minute rule motion, to be put forward by his hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry). I am sure that he is sitting expectantly with that in mind.

Consumer Protection (Distance Selling Delivery Charges)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Drew Hendry: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require distance sellers to provide purchasers with a lowest available delivery cost option; to introduce a scheme for a fair delivery quality mark for responsible retailers; to establish penalties where vendors advertise free delivery but subsequently impose charges or conditions; and for connected purposes.
	I am grateful for the opportunity to bring in the Bill, for this is indeed an issue that my constituents deal with on a daily basis and tell me about regularly. I know that the Minister for Skills is aware of our concerns, and I am grateful to him for his engagement so far. There is consumer appetite for improved online shopping throughout our communities, but there are areas that are being badly served by some retailers and carriers. Online shopping is a growing market, and it is particularly important to rural communities, and paying more in rural areas—the highlands and islands, for example—is unfair.
	We know that the costs of delivery will always vary, but that is not what this is about; this is about people feeling excluded because of a disproportionately narrow and costly range of delivery options. Even people living in cities such as Inverness are being charged punitive surcharges for the delivery of goods. One of my constituents was asked to pay £90 for the delivery of a mobile phone. Current legislation is not working.
	I am grateful for the support of hon. Members from all the nations of the UK who have experienced similar issues. For example, 43% of consumers in Northern Ireland have encountered a delivery surcharge, and it is estimated that shoppers there can pay, on average, an additional £7.93 on top of standard UK delivery costs. For goods delivered to the highlands and islands, 53% of retailers apply a delivery surcharge and consumers have to pay, on average, an additional £14.71.
	Unfairness is not only wrong; it is bad for business. Resentful customers are created when seven in 10 consumers reluctantly pay a surcharge for delivery of their item, and they will look elsewhere next time. There are those who will tell us that these are just market forces at work, but in this connected world it has already been accepted that there is a need for universal services in broadband provision, to allow everyone to participate. Why does that not extend to the product at the end of the process?
	If all this seems like small beer to some people, it should be remembered that this type of injustice lives longest in the memory and the higher the price in loss of trust through disconnect. Because of their postcodes, people are considered to be in the minority, to be unimportant and to be left behind. Why should we allow that prejudice? Many are already asked to pay more for fuel and heating, and among them are often the more vulnerable consumers. That is why it needs to be our collective responsibility, when talking about the delivery of goods, to first deliver the principle of fairness.
	Let us now shine a light on good retailers and carriers. The Bill calls for the introduction of a kitemark or quality mark. Many companies work hard to ensure that they provide a good service across our nations, and they should be celebrated and recognised. Highlighting their good practices will allow them to access and help those currently being discriminated against, and they in turn will benefit from increased business. The really good news for companies is that those consumers are proven to be exceptionally loyal, and they will buy again.
	There is a reason why operators such as eBay have introduced a “premium seller” badge for their vendors: it makes good business sense. Indeed, the principles that eBay seeks to apply to its traders are very similar to those that I am proposing today for the wider market. A key part of eBay’s rating is based on delivery and shipping costs, and sellers lose their “premium seller” rating when they have poor feedback. In this example there is a consequence for poor behaviour.
	However, the wider distance selling market has no such rewards, and there are no clearly understood consequences for bad practice, or indeed for mis-selling of delivery. The introduction of an industry-wide kitemark or quality mark will allow consumers easily to identify those traders and carriers that can be trusted. That can be industry-led. Of course it will need careful thought, but there are no barriers that cannot be overcome.
	The Consumer Rights Act 2015 aimed to make consumer law clearer, but recent research has shown that a number of retailers are still unsure of their responsibilities. Greater awareness is needed to better support retailers. This is not an isolated problem. In preparing the Bill, I spoke with consumer groups, trading standards, retailers and couriers, and they all agree that there is a lack of clarity. Current legislation sets out that consumers should have
	“upfront disclosure of pertinent delivery information at an early stage in the transaction process”.
	But that is not happening. Seven in 10 consumers do try to seek out that information prior to checkout, but recent research by Citizens Advice Scotland and the Consumer Council for Northern Ireland has shown that some retailers are still not complying fully with new consumer legislation.
	When vendors or delivery companies unfairly discriminate based on location, there needs to be a clear understanding of the rights of the consumers and the redress that they would have in relation to such unfairness and false adverting. Existing laws are often unenforced and are too cumbersome, so opportunities for administrative penalties need to be considered.
	Of course, online retailers have the right to choose where they supply their goods or services, but consumers should also have the right to know before they get to the last page of their transaction what they will be charged. Up-front information should include prominent and transparent key contract terms, including the total price of the goods and services and all delivery charges, not misleading terms. For example, people are told that they can take advantage of free delivery within the UK when that is not true.
	In the highlands and in my constituency there are many mysteries, such as the location of the Loch Ness monster, but the biggest mystery has to be why Inverness, one of the fastest growing cities in Europe, and towns such as Nairn are apparently not on the mainland, at least according to some couriers. People are not buying boxes to be sent to Brigadoon; they are asking for things to be sent to a modern city.
	The discrimination test has been failed, sometimes unintentionally, but couriers can make the situation worse for retailers by using out-of-date postcode software. There is an inconsistent and variable approach by some retailers to the disclosure of delivery information, which can lead to confusion, shopping fatigue, cart abandonment and, ultimately, lost revenue for the retailers themselves.
	There must be a greater understanding among consumers, retailers and couriers of their rights and of the consequences of bad practice. It is not just me saying that: organisations such as Citizens Advice Scotland are calling for greater intervention and education.
	The Bill also sets out the need for greater consumer choice over delivery options. People often do not have choices. Again, why are people in the highlands and islands paying nearly £15 more for delivery when we have a universal Royal Mail service? They should have that as a clear option. Alternatively, they should be able to have goods sent to recognised collection points or to arrange pick-up directly from the vendor. The answer is simple: give the consumer the right to choose.
	As a former retailer, I know that that will mean a change in working practices, but barriers can always be overcome, and that will result in better business. Companies make adjustments all the time to improve, and I am sure that exciting new business opportunities could be explored, including the use of delivery brokers or working with other companies to maximise potential.
	In introducing the Bill, we offer to work with the Government, business and others to establish change and to provide not just yet another set of promises, but a set of solutions. Let us recognise the good work of fair retailers and delivery companies through a kitemark. Let us make sure that there is clarity about the expectations in current legislation, and let us consider the option of administrative penalties for continued abuse. We should give consumers the choice over delivery and let them decide whether they want the universal service.
	There are challenges, but let us decide to support those who find themselves in the position I have described. They are not asking for the unattainable. They do not expect to be treated with undue favour. They should not continue to be ignored. They deserve to be listened to. This is the time to extend inclusion and end exclusion. We have the opportunity here, with this Bill, to take action.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Drew Hendry, Brendan O’Hara, Gavin Robinson, Caroline Lucas, Dr Paul Monaghan, Mark Durkan, Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil, Patricia Gibson, Ian Blackford, Mike Weir, Hywel Williams and Chris Law present the Bill.
	Drew Hendry accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 March, and to be printed (Bill 140).

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[19th Allotted Day]
	 — 
	Transitional State Pension Arrangements for Women

Owen Smith: I beg to move,
	That this House notes that the e-petition 110776, Make fair transitional state pension arrangements for 1950s women, has attracted more than 150,000 signatures; and calls on the Government to bring forward proposals for transitional arrangements for women adversely affected by the acceleration of the increase in the state pension age.
	I want to start today’s important debate by saying how lucky I am to come from a family in which there have always been such strong and hard-working women—my mother and grandmothers, and now my wife and daughter. If there is one thing I have learned from all of them, it is that no one should ever try to pull the wool over their eyes—to take them for fools—because I guarantee they will always be found out.
	That is a lesson the Tories really should have learned back in 1991—when they first started planning to equalise the pension age for women with that for men—because that is precisely what has happened: they have been found out. They have been found to have failed in their duty to inform women properly about the changes that were planned. They have been found to have left hundreds of thousands of women ill-prepared for a decision that would see the worst affected lose up to £36,000 in pension payments. They were found to have compounded their error in 2011, when a further delay to the pension age—to 66—was rammed through with barely two years’ notice. In the words of their current Pensions Minister, they have been found to have “pulled the rug” from under 2.6 million British women. Today, Labour will speak for those 2.6 million women and demand that the Government tell us what they plan to do to make amends.

Edward Leigh: Before we get too party political about this, it can indeed be said that an individual notice should have been given back in 1995. However, shortly after that, Labour came in, and there were perhaps a dozen Labour Pensions Ministers during all of Labour’s time in office. We are 20 years on. Can the hon. Gentleman not accept that we all have lessons to learn? An individual notice should have been sent out by at least one of those Governments—by the Conservative Government or the Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to do that over all those years.

Owen Smith: With respect, I did not have an opportunity because I was not here at the time. The hon. Gentleman is right that successive Governments have lessons to learn from this sorry affair, but the truth, as I intend to spell out, is that a change was first mooted in 1991, and the then Tory Government made no substantive efforts between 1991 and 1997, when they left office, to offer people a proper notice. Thereafter, the Labour Government did attempt to do that, and I will enumerate exactly the ways we tried to make amends. However, the problem was compounded by the coalition Government’s actions in 2011. If anybody has lessons to learn, it is the
	Conservative party, which has the greatest responsibility for these changes, and which now has a duty to make amends.

John Glen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Owen Smith: I will make some progress if I may, and then I will give way.
	These things started back in 1991. That was when the Tory Government first consulted on their intention to shift the state pension age for women to 65 from 60, where it had been since the 1940s. Then, in the 1993 Budget, the Chancellor formally stated his intention to make this move, and he legislated for it through 1994 and 1995. The Pensions Act 1995 stipulated that the pension age would rise by five years during the decade from 2010 to 2020. That meant that women born between April 1950 and December 1959 would have to wait between one month and five years more before they could draw their pensions.
	One would have thought that such a massive change—the biggest change to women’s pensions in half a century—would have been communicated with great care and, in truth, fanfare, but it was not. Some of the women concerned were as young as 39 at the time, so it is unlikely that they were looking carefully at the financial papers or paying much attention to the Government’s scant efforts to tell them about the changes.

John Glen: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that, in 2004, the Work and Pensions Committee found that three quarters of women between the ages of 45 and 54 at the time were aware of the changes in the 1995 Act? I accept that there were mistakes by parties on both sides of the House in terms of communication, but three quarters of women knew 12 years ago about the changes.

Owen Smith: I am pleased to swap stories about what people knew at the time, because the truth is that the question asked in that 2004 survey by the then Labour Government, who were concerned that the previous Tory Government had not made proper provision for women, was, unfortunately, not as straightforward as it should have been. Other surveys—five or six—from academics and others in the pensions world found that about 70% to 80% of the women involved did not know that the changes were taking place. It is no surprise they did not know, because the Conservative Government at the time spent very little money advertising the change. There were a few adverts in the newspapers, and letters were available to individuals if they requested them, but many did not.
	Several hon. Members  rose—

Owen Smith: I will quote one of those letters when I have given way to my hon. Friends.

Yasmin Qureshi: Constituents have written to me saying that they have been at their current address for the last 20, 30 or 40 years, but that they have received nothing to tell them about the changes.

Owen Smith: That is an extremely common experience for MPs, because the letters sent out in 1995 by the then Tory Government were neither use nor ornament. I have got one here that was sent to a woman on 13 June 1995. This letter has five pages, and not one of them mentions that the pension age is going to rise to 65. In fact, every single page refers to the fact that the state pension age for women is 60. The final page offers the extraordinary suggestion that
	“a form inviting you to claim your State Retirement Pension will be sent to you”
	a few
	“months before you reach 60.”
	This happened in the very month that the Bill that became the 1995 Act was going through this House under that Government. That is a measure of what a desperately poor job they did of informing people.

Catherine McKinnell: I have lost count of the number of constituents who have contacted me to say that they had absolutely no idea about these pension changes and heard about them on the radio or the TV. Fortunately, we are raising the profile of this issue on the Government’s behalf. Is it not insulting of Government Members to suggest that these women are wrong, or lying, or that there is something wrong with them, when ultimately it is the Government’s responsibility to communicate these changes?

Owen Smith: It is wrong, it is insulting, and it compounds the more fundamental insult that women who, by and large, have smaller pensions because they had lower earnings throughout their entire lifetime while bearing a burden for the rest of us have been told that they cannot access their pension. That is the real insult that we should be worried about.
	My hon. Friend is right that it is completely insulting to suggest that proper notice was given, because the truth is that it was a botched job from start to finish. We know that because the current Conservative Pensions Minister in the House of Lords says so. She says quite clearly that
	“until recently, many of these women were expecting to receive their state pension at age 60, since they were unaware of the changes made in 1995”.
	The Government are damned out of their own mouths.

Nadine Dorries: I am going to be unusually helpful to the Opposition spokesman. I am one of these women. I have never received a letter, I have never been notified, and I think the Department might know where I live.

Owen Smith: I cannot believe for a minute that the hon. Lady is old enough to be one of the women concerned. It tests the credibility of the House that that could be so. I am nevertheless grateful for her intervention.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend recognise that there are a lot of women like Jayne Manners in my constituency, who assumed she was going to retire at 60, is now disabled, and has no ability whatsoever to make up the difference for the six years she has lost because of these changes?

Owen Smith: That is the case for thousands of women across this country. That is why this is more than a small campaign: there is a fundamental injustice that must be changed.

Derek Twigg: My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. Increasing numbers of women in my constituency have been coming to my surgery and writing to me about this, many of whom I have known for many years because I was born and bred in the constituency. I am absolutely convinced of their sincerity and that they knew nothing about this because of the lack of notification. We saw earlier at Prime Minister’s Question Time the Prime Minister’s complete lack of understanding, or even care, for these women.

Owen Smith: My hon. Friend is of course entirely right. He will know, because he was part of the previous Labour Government, that we tried to improve this set of circumstances. We conducted the survey that showed that there was a worryingly low level of understanding. Between 2004 and 2009, the then Labour Government instituted several million-pound advertising campaigns and sent out 800,000 personalised letters to the affected women, such as the one I have here, which, in stark contrast to the Tory letter I cited, says on the first page that the addressee will be affected by the change in age from 60 to 65.
	The reality is testified to by many of my hon. Friends and by the brilliant women of the WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality—campaign, whose tenacity and truth-telling we should pay tribute to right across this House, because they speak for hundreds of thousands of women who did not know that they were in the firing line.

Dawn Butler: A total of 4,465 women in my constituency are going to be affected by this. Does my hon. Friend agree that it has been caused by an historical inequality in the system?

Owen Smith: Of course it has, because historical inequalities existed then and persist now. The gender pay gap affects women. Women often do not have the full stamp because of their caring duties, and that is why it is doubly unjust that they should now be asked to pay a price in their retirement.

Helen Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that this generation of women are doubly disadvantaged, because many were at work before the Equal Pay Act 1970 came into force and had to take low-paid part-time jobs because of lack of childcare, and the Government are now heaping insult upon injury in disadvantaging them again in retirement?

Owen Smith: My hon. Friend spoke with great eloquence in the recent Westminster Hall debate after a petition of 155,000 signatures was brought to this place, with more signatures from the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) than anywhere else in the country—a magnificent job by the women of Leigh.
	I will quote once more the current Pensions Minister, who said:
	“Across the country I’m hearing from women who are enduring that sudden sickening realisation that their destiny in retirement is not in their own hands—this is not about fairytale luxury retirement villas, this is about affording the basics.”
	That is the view of the current Pensions Minister, and the Government cannot run from it.

Philippa Whitford: I would like to challenge the figure that was quoted by a Member on the Government Benches. The Opposition spokesman might have the correct figure, but the figure reported from the Department for Work and Pensions investigation in 2004 was just above 40%, not 75%. Surely, given such a cataclysmic change, every single one of these women should have had a simple letter on the doormat in 1995.

Owen Smith: The hon. Lady is entirely right. Even if 40% of women were unaware, that is 40% too many. As I said, five or six other surveys were done by academics and those in other institutions that suggested that 80% of women were unaware that they were going to be affected, so the reality is that the number was far greater.
	The scale of this problem only truly started to dawn on people when the Government decided to double down on their calamity with the Pensions Act 2011.

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend is about to come on to the injustice of the 2011 Act. Is not the real issue not only that these ladies have been hit not once but twice by an increase in their state pension age, but that no transitional arrangement was put in place? Is that not why it is absolutely right that we support the Labour motion to get the Government off the fence and provide these ladies with the transitional arrangement they deserve?

Owen Smith: This House and Government Members would do well to heed the words of my hon. Friend, because, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), he has been the doughtiest campaigner in this House on behalf of these women. He speaks the truth when he says that Members from across the House should back our motion to provide transitional protections for them.
	The 2011 Act not only broke the Government’s promise that the pension age for women was not going to rise until 2020, but broke the promise that no rises would occur without at least 10 years’ notice, because the women who suffered the double blow were given just two years’ notice. The former Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, has described that decision as an ill-informed “mistake”. He tried to make up for it in office, and secured some mitigation for 300,000 of the women who were due to see their state pension age go up by more than 18 months. The Minister on the Front Bench will no doubt mention this shortly, telling us that it cost £1.1 billion, but I bet he will not remind us that his predecessor was looking for £3 billion in order to offer these transitional protections. I suspect he may only say sotto voce that half of that £1 billion went not to women but to men.

Tim Loughton: I support the motion, because I support the WASPI women and I support transitional arrangements, but I have to say that the hon. Gentleman is making it more difficult for me and for colleagues to vote for the motion by making the matter so partisan. Thirteen years of Labour government did not help the situation. May I therefore suggest that in the spirit of the motion, which I support, he could give more details of what those transitional arrangements should be, so that we can at last start the dialogue that the Government should have started some time ago to see whether there is a middle way and a compromise to help the women who desperately need it?

Owen Smith: I am sorry if I am bruising the hon. Gentleman’s feelings with my remarks. I am pleased that he has supported the campaign, and I know that he has been brave enough to speak in favour of it on several occasions. I am positive that a man of his resolve will not be put off by a few words across the Dispatch Box and will vote for the motion, irrespective of what I say; at least, I trust that he will. I will come on to talk about precisely the sorts of transitional arrangements that the Government should put in place.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: This is the third opportunity we have had to debate this important matter in the Chamber and Westminster Hall. Notwithstanding the mistakes of the past or who made them, the Government have an opportunity to do the right thing by the women of this country. Why do they not just grasp the opportunity with both hands and deliver that for those women?

Owen Smith: Why do they not do so? The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions occasionally comes to the Chamber to answer questions, but he has ducked out of the last five debates, and he is not here today. I have suggested before that we ought to sanction him for failing to turn up to work, and I think that may be a good idea. The truth is that the Government are not offering any further suggestions about how they might do what the Secretary of State promised in 2011. He said at the Dispatch Box that transitional arrangements would be put in place for these women, but he has not offered any such arrangements. The Government have offered nothing but defensive positions.
	I hate to be partisan; it is really not in my nature. However, I cannot but draw Members’ attention to the guidance on the Whips’ note about Women Against State Pension Inequality that has been handed around to Government Members. It states quite clearly that the WASPI campaign is demanding that
	“all women born after April 1951…be given their pension at age 60”
	and that
	“no one will see any reduction in their income as a result of the changes to the state pension age”.
	It claims that the rise in the state pension age has been “widely communicated” and states, as the Minister will, no doubt, repeat in a moment, that absolutely nothing more can be done.
	On every point, the crib sheet and the Government are wrong. Women affected have lost income—the state pension income that they would have been paid under the previous arrangements. The changes were not widely communicated, as I have made clear today. The WASPI women are not opposed to the equalisation of the state pension age. Their petition, which had 155,000 signatures, said so explicitly. They support it, but they want what the Government promised: transitional arrangements.

Jo Cox: One of the 4,100 women in my constituency affected by the changes recently told me that throughout her life a number of changes have impacted on her and the many thousands of women of her generation, such as unequal pay, the ability of employers to dismiss women because they were pregnant, and a lack of childcare. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is still time for the Government to correct that injustice and, in the interests of being non-partisan, to do the right thing and put in place transitional measures?

Owen Smith: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Women have suffered a million and one other injustices in the workplace and on payday for generations, and this is another injustice being heaped upon them.

Sylvia Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to acknowledge the serious injustice suffered by women who were born in the 1950s who have been offered and have accepted retirement packages from their employers that included figures based on the assumption that the retirement age would be 60?

Owen Smith: It is no surprise that the hon. Lady, who speaks with great erudition, has highlighted yet another injustice that women have suffered. I say again that the Government must recognise that and bring forward some suggestions. There are myriad ways in which they could mitigate the problem. There are lots of transitional arrangements that could be put in place, and I will list six of them.

Toby Perkins: The case that my hon. Friend is making is absolutely right. The point is that Governments, on occasion, make mistakes. It is not too late for Ministers to stand at the Dispatch Box, put things right and end the misery of thousands of people—not only women, but their husbands, who are equally affected financially by the impact on the household. The Government could put that right.

Owen Smith: The Government could do so, and the Minister has five minutes or so to come up with what he wants to say to put it right. In case he has no ideas written down, I will give him six suggestions. The Government could delay the pension age increase until 2020 so that the pension age reached 66 by 2021. That option is favoured by the Pensions Minister in the House of Lords. The Government could cap the maximum state pension age increase from the 2011 Act at 12 months, which the predecessor of the Pensions Minister advocated. The Government could keep the qualifying age for pension credit on the previous timetable, which would help out some of the poorest women in that category, as Labour suggested in 2011. The Government could allow those affected to take a reduced state pension at an earlier age during the transition, as Alan Higham has suggested. The Government could extend the timetable for increasing the overall state pension age by 18 months so that it reaches 66 by April 2022, as John Ralfe has suggested. Finally, the Government could simply pay a lower state pension for a longer period throughout the pensionable age of the women affected. All those things would involve costs, but they are all ways in which the Government could act. What we need from the Government is not more carping but the will to get on and do something.

Khalid Mahmood: The six points that my hon. Friend has just raised would be helpful to the 3,450 women in my constituency—

Nadine Dorries: All six of them?

Khalid Mahmood: All six points, yes. They would be important for the woman who wrote to me this morning to say that she never received the letter and she only found out what was going on through her workplace pension. Unfortunately, she is now unemployed and has been for 20 months. She is trying hard to get a job, but she is extremely worried about how much longer she will have to work to make up for the lost contributions. She is in a very difficult position and has no guidance from anybody. Why do the Government not help her?

Owen Smith: My hon. Friend speaks with passion and knowledge about the 4,000-odd women in his constituency who are affected. There are thousands of women in a similar position in all our constituencies, and my hon. Friend’s point is clear: one of the transitional measures must be put in place.

Pat McFadden: Constituents such as Mrs Cox in my constituency do not object to the principle of equalisation, but they object, as my hon. Friend is quite rightly saying, to the speed and scale of the changes. That is why his points about transitional arrangements are so important to Mrs Cox and many others. Will he also deal with the insidious evasion of responsibility among some Conservative Members, who are trying to blame the European Union rather than their own Government’s decision for the measures that have been taken? The same thing is not happening in other countries. It is the Government’s decision, and no one else’s.

Owen Smith: I expect that the Secretary of State is out in Europe somewhere right now blaming the European Union for his sins of inaction. Mrs Cox speaks for all the women in the WASPI campaign who are not opposed to the equalisation of the state pension age at 65 or 66, but who are opposed to the injustices that are being visited on them.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Owen Smith: I am going to make a little more progress, and then I will give way. The truth is that we have had quite enough talk. The sins of omission and commission are well known, and the Government should now act. The Bills in 1995 and 2011 were their Bills, and the mistakes were their mistakes, so it is for them to put things right. Women in Britain have suffered inequality in the workplace and on payday for far too long. No Government should compound that fact when the carers and the grafters in our society, on whom we rely for so much, reach their retirement day.
	There is a Budget in three weeks, and the Chancellor has a golden opportunity to rise to the challenge and put in place one of the six variants of transitional arrangements that I have talked about. He would be well advised to do so.

Alison McGovern: My hon. Friend mentions the Budget. Does he agree that, given the corporation tax cuts and the cuts to inheritance tax in the Chancellor’s most recent Budget, the Chancellor clearly has the will to spend and should now pay attention to the WASPI campaign?

Owen Smith: At the last Budget, the Chancellor happened to find £27 billion extra in tax revenues, which was a very handy little windfall to find down the back of the sofa, but the WASPI women will have heard that he did not spend a red cent of it—not a penny—on them, as he could have done. If he continues to play the WASPI women for fools and continues to take our pensioners for granted, then, as Baroness Altmann has told him already, he will live to regret it.
	That is a sentiment that we can share right across the House. It is why not a single Conservative Member chose to vote against either of the previous calls for transitional arrangements in any of the debates we have held. It is why so many Conservative Back Benchers have pledged their support to the WASPI campaign. It is why this issue will not go away without action from the Government.

Barbara Keeley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Owen Smith: I give way to the doughty campaigner from Eccles.

Barbara Keeley: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way at this point because I want to make sure that we are not given the same excuses by the Minister, when he speaks in a moment, that he has previously given. We heard:
	“Equalisation was necessary to meet the UK’s obligations under EU law”.—[Official Report, 2 December 2015; Vol. 603, c. 145WH.]
	Conservative Members have been writing that out, but it is not true. I have raised this in a number of debates. The interesting thing in relation to changing previous legislation is that Poland is now introducing legislation to reverse its previous reforms. Its Government clearly realised that they had got it wrong, just as this Government have got it wrong.

Owen Smith: Poland has realised that it had moved too fast. France has done the same, as has Germany. Countries across Europe, Governments across Europe—including right-wing Governments in parts of Europe—have acknowledged that they made a mistake and are backtracking. Only this Government refuse to acknowledge any mistake, and refuse to acknowledge that they have any culpability or responsibility.
	This issue will not go away, and when the Minister stands at the Dispatch Box in a moment, he should offer a glint of sunlight and some hope for the WASPI women that the Government have heard their campaign and will do something about it. If the Government do not, I will urge all Back-Bench Members to do so on their behalf.

Shailesh Vara: The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) has just made a speech more of politics than of substance. Given that he has declared himself a contender in the event of a Labour leadership contest, it is clear that his choice of audience was more about getting nominated as a contender than about dealing with the substance of the matter at hand.
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	Labour Front Benchers are chuntering, “What about the women?” Precisely—what about the women? What about focusing the debate on the women? What about some substance? I will move on to that.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Shailesh Vara: I wish to make a little progress.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: rose—

Shailesh Vara: I will give way, but I first wish to make a little progress.
	Hon. Members will be aware that the women’s state pension age was changed in 1995 to equalise it with the state pension age for men. Equalisation was then accelerated in the Pensions Act 2011, following extensive debates in both Houses of Parliament. Those changes were about bringing gender equality to pensions for the first time, about reflecting rises in life expectancy—it continues to rise for both men and women—and about taking spending on pensions to more sustainable levels.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because I wanted to point out to him that the audience today is the huge number of women across the country who are adversely affected by the changes. One of them wrote to me:
	“When equalization for pensions was first introduced in 1995 I was informed I could collect my State Pension at 64…however this was changed again in 2011 to…66. This is very unfair to me and the many other women it affects bearing the brunt of the changes twice”.
	Labour has recognised that, which is why we have tabled a motion calling for transitional arrangements. Why is the Minister not backing us and the WASPI women on this?

Shailesh Vara: As far as the hon. Lady’s question—or her speech, which had a question at the end of it—is concerned, I will address those issues later in my speech. However, she is absolutely right that the audience for this debate is the women concerned. In my speech, I intend to address the substance of the subject, rather than the politics of it, which we heard earlier.

Mark Spencer: Was the Minister struck, as I was, by the fact that the shadow Secretary of State, during the 30 minutes he took to set out the challenges we face, did not actually tell us what the Labour party would do, which of the six changes he would commit to, or whether he would commit to all six of them?

Shailesh Vara: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The shadow Secretary of State’s speech was full of bluster and specified no options. He failed to recognise or to speak about the cost, and to explain why the issue was not in the Labour party manifesto. The luxury for the Opposition is the ability to spend money for which they are not accountable and for which they have no responsibility. The difficulty for the Government is to deal with taxpayers’ money and to take the hard decisions that are necessary.

Alison McGovern: The Minister is speaking as though we did nothing to bring this issue to the Government’s attention during the last Parliament. That is straightforwardly not true. I participated in debate after debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), who brought it to the Government’s attention time and again. As we have had so many debates about it, can we not just get on with talking about what we are going to do about it?

Shailesh Vara: I will come on to the debate we had in 2011 later in my speech. If the hon. Lady wants to talk about previous Governments, may I gently remind her of the 13 years of Labour Government, with the 10 Pensions Ministers—one Minister had the job twice—and the nine Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions? In the interests of fairness, she, along with everyone else, might wish to acknowledge the limited work, if any, that was done during the 13 years of the Labour Government to put matters right, as they put it.

Owen Smith: The Minister says that the Labour Government did limited work. May I point out that, following a freedom of information request to the Government just a couple of weeks ago, it was conceded that Labour spent more than £5 million advertising the changes and sent out 800,000 letters? That was in stark contrast to the previous Tory Government, which, frankly, did damn all.

Shailesh Vara: If the hon. Gentleman is so proud of what the Labour Government did, why does he stand up to complain? They obviously did very little, and it must have had very little impact, because otherwise we would not be hearing the comments that Labour Members are making today.

John Redwood: When it comes to equalisation, how much leeway do the UK Government have under EU law?

Shailesh Vara: EU law does require us to equalise pension ages. Later in my speech, I will mention countries that have already achieved what we are still endeavouring to achieve. Incidentally, the shadow Secretary of State was wrong in what he said about Germany. German has already achieved equalisation.

Helen Jones: The hon. Gentleman ought to recognise that although EU law requires the equalisation of pension ages, it also allows for transitional arrangements while reaching that stage. Frankly, it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Shailesh Vara: I will come to transitional arrangements a little later on.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: There are women in Northumberland who are likely to be in serious financial difficulty as a result of these changes. It will not be most of those affected, but it will be a few. My concern is for that small number of women. I would be most grateful if the Minister would agree to meet me and other Government Members to look at the small group of women who face such financial pressures.

Shailesh Vara: Ministers are always pleased to have meetings with colleagues, and I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend and others.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Shailesh Vara: I want to make some progress, because I am still on my first page.

Peter Bottomley: Will the Minister give way?

Shailesh Vara: I will give way, but then I want to make some progress.

Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend is saying some fair things about the Opposition and they do not like it. Will he turn his mind to a fair thing that I want to say about the women who are directly affected? The issue is that people who were born within 12 months of each other can have retirement ages nearly three years apart. That is where better transitional arrangements are needed. We all know that this Government have had to put right many things that previous Governments have got wrong, but this is something we need to get right for ourselves.

Shailesh Vara: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. If I am allowed to make some progress, I will talk about transitional arrangements and what we are doing.

Mark Durkan: Will the Minister give way?

Shailesh Vara: I will give way later, but I wish to make some progress.
	There has been much debate about this issue, and we have had several debates about it in recent weeks. It comes down to two fundamental issues. First, there have been calls to undo the 2011 pension changes. The cost of that would be more than £30 billion. Secondly, there are calls by some to go even further and unravel the 1995 pension reforms.

Helen Jones: Nobody’s asking for that.

Shailesh Vara: Yes, there are many people, including people in WASPI, who want to unravel the 1995 reforms. It is out there on the internet for people to see, so let us not try to deny the two options that are being debated out there. I said at the outset that I was going to talk about the substance of the matter, and I will talk about both those options.

Owen Smith: Will the Minister give way?

Shailesh Vara: I will give way in a moment, but I wish to continue.
	If we unravel the 1995 pension reforms, as many people outside this place want us to do, it would cost £77 billion up to 2020-21, and the costs would continue to accrue after that period.

Owen Smith: The Minister repeats the calumny that the WASPI women are saying, “Do not equalise pensions, and get rid of the 1995 Act.” That is exactly what the Whips’ crib sheet says, but he knows it is not true. That was one comment made by one woman among the hundreds of thousands on Facebook. It is not what WASPI said to the Work and Pensions Committee, and it is not what it said in its petition. It is not true. Will he withdraw it?

Shailesh Vara: I am simply speaking from my personal experience of speaking to women. There are women who have said to me that they want the restoration of the 1995 rules. Colleagues in this House have had people in their surgeries speaking of 1995. The hon. Gentleman may not have had that—he may be out of touch, but the rest of us are not. When we talk of £77 billion or even £30 billion, we are not talking about a few million pounds or a few billion pounds. In both contexts, we are talking of tens of billions of pounds. That situation is simply not sustainable.

Fiona Mactaggart: When the hon. Gentleman says that £30 billion was saved as a result of the 2011 changes, what he is saying is that there was a transfer from one of the poorest groups in our society, which is women in their 50s. That group of women saw the largest growth in unemployment under the coalition Government and are more likely to have to work after retirement than men. When they do so, two thirds of them work on the lowest wage levels, unlike men who work after retirement, two thirds of whom work on the highest wage levels. What does he have to say about picking the pockets of the poorest women in our society?

Shailesh Vara: I will address some of the points that the right hon. Lady makes, because there is a broader context to this debate, rather than simply the issue of the pension age. Given the opportunity, I would like to make some progress.
	People are living longer and leading healthier lives. Of course, that is to be welcomed, but it does increase the pressure on the state pension scheme. As a Government, we have a responsibility to keep it affordable and sustainable for future generations.

Neil Gray: rose—

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: rose—

Shailesh Vara: I would like to make some progress.
	The changes that have been made are important in making the state pension scheme affordable and sustainable. They also reflect the way in which men and women lead their lives now, rather than the way they led them in the 1940s. I will come back to that point later.
	First, I want to tackle one issue head-on. Many hon. Members have talked about the need for transitional arrangements. I point them towards the extensive debates and discussions that took place when the legislation passed through Parliament. Let me quote Hansard from the day on which the Pensions Bill received its Second Reading in June 2011. The Secretary of State made it very clear that equalisation of the state pension age would take place in 2018. He said that
	“we have no plans to change equalisation in 2018, or the age of 66 for both men and women in 2020, but we will consider transitional arrangements.”—[Official Report, 20 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 52.]
	Yes, he said,
	“we will consider transitional arrangements.”
	Four months after the Secretary of State said those words, and after he had considered the matter further, a concession or a transitional arrangement—call it what you will—was indeed considered by this House and included on Report. That transitional arrangement was worth over £1 billion and reduced the delay that anyone would experience in claiming their state pension from two years to 18 months. So when people say that transitional arrangements should have been made, I simply ask them to look back at the record, to consider what was said and to consider what was subsequently done four months later. There were transitional arrangements. They passed through the House, there was extensive debate, there was extensive engagement with the relevant stakeholders and it was done.

Neil Gray: I think that this is the fourth debate I have attended in which the Minister has responded on these issues, and his answers on this injustice are still woefully inadequate. Talking of injustice, will he answer my constituent, Shiona Airlie, who is four months outside this measure and was only notified in 2012 that she would have to wait a further four years—less than a year before her 60th birthday? Where is the justice in that? How is it fair after she has paid into the system for all of her working life?

Shailesh Vara: I will address the issue of notification later.

Kirsten Oswald: The Minister’s description of Hansard and the discussions that took place in this House was extensive, but the ladies concerned do not know about that. It is surely unreasonable to expect them to read Hansard to understand what their pension arrangements should be. Women in my constituency are coming to my surgery to tell me of the significant changes that they and their families will experience because of this policy. It is not good enough and the Minister must listen and act.

Shailesh Vara: The hon. Lady is absolutely right that the public are uninterested in Hansard. My point was that people in this House who are speaking in this debate should read Hansard. Rather than simply saying, “Where are the transitional arrangements?”, they should recognise that transitional arrangements were made.

Graham Evans: Is it not a fact that people were not aware of the Pensions Act 1995? We had 13 years of a Labour Government that spent £5 million on communication. Is it not the complete failure of the previous Labour Government that failed the women involved?

Shailesh Vara: My hon. Friend is right. In 13 years of government, Labour—with 10 Pensions Ministers and nine Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions— completely failed these women and now refuses to accept any responsibility or to acknowledge the arithmetic of the pensions budget. Labour Members seek to put the blame on those at this Dispatch Box without making any contrary proposals. They refuse to commit themselves. As I said earlier, the luxury of opposition is being able to speak about spending huge sums of money without having the responsibility of taking the political decisions that we have to take.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Shailesh Vara: I have given way many times and I am afraid that we are now getting to a stage at which MPs are simply repeating points that have already been raised. I am mindful that many hon. Members wish to speak. Nobody can accuse me of not being generous in giving way, but I wish to make progress.
	The changes that were made, and the transitional arrangements made in 2011, benefited a quarter of a million women who would have otherwise have had a delay of up to two years. For more than 80% of those affected, the increase in the time period will be no more than 12 months. The House voted for this amendment to the Bill and a concession was called for. A concession was considered by the Government, proposed by the Government and accepted and voted for by this House. The Government promised to consider transitional arrangements in 2011 when the legislation was going through, and that is exactly what the Government delivered—a reduction in the time period from two years to 18 months at a cost of £1.1 billion. That shows that the Government were listening to the concerns of Members and responded to them at the time.

Carolyn Harris: Exactly how much of that money went to the women concerned?

Shailesh Vara: The hon. Lady needs to appreciate that the concept of dealing with pensions and money is that the concession was made—

Carolyn Harris: I know the answer. How much?

Shailesh Vara: That concession was made by the taxpayer—[Interruption.] It was made by the taxpayer, and the total cost was £1.1 billion—

Carolyn Harris: How much?

Shailesh Vara: As I have said, and I am sorry that the hon. Lady has not got the message yet, and that she does not appreciate that the time was shortened by six months—[Interruption.]

Natascha Engel: Order. There is a lot of shouting out now. If the Minister wants to take an intervention, he will, but if we could stop shouting it would help us proceed with the debate.

Shailesh Vara: Another reason that some have called for the legislation to be revisited is that they felt that notification needs to be reconsidered. I simply do not accept that the Government have failed to make every effort to notify the women affected.

Catherine McKinnell: Will the Minister give way?

Shailesh Vara: I will not give way, as I wish to make progress.
	Following the 2011 Act, we wrote to all those directly affected to inform them of the change to their state pension age. About 5 million letters were sent by the DWP and the sending of the letters to those affected was completed between January 2012 and November 2013. Letters to those whose state pension age was set by the 1995 Act only were sent between April 2009, when Labour was still in government, and March 2011, when that process was finished by the coalition Government. As a result of those efforts, in 2012 a survey by the DWP found that only 6% of women who were within 10 years of receiving their pension thought that their state pension age was still 60.
	The shadow Work and Pensions Secretary mentioned several surveys and was somewhat selective in those to which he referred. The one done by the DWP, which runs and is in charge of the pension scheme, has a fair amount of validity and, as I say, only 6% of women who were within 10 years of receiving their pension thought that their state pension age was still 60. As for the original 1995 changes to the state pension age, in 2004 nearly three quarters of those between 45 and 54 were aware of changes to women’s state pensions. Our communications campaign has focused on raising general awareness of the changes and encouraging those closest to the state pension age to get a personalised state pension statement.

Richard Graham: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and, despite the chuntering from those on the Labour Front Bench, I can assure him and everyone else that this is my question. We heard earlier from the shadow Secretary of State that he believed that the communication on this been absolutely appalling. He overlooked the fact that his own Government estimated that 75% of women had been informed. He also overlooked the fact that according to evidence to the Select Committee there were 600 mentions of the 1995 Act found in the media at that time. According to the briefing on the state pension legislation, 17 million automatic forecasts were issued by the Labour Government between 2004 and 2006—[Hon. Members: “Speech!”] Does my hon. Friend agree that although undoubtedly some women were not informed, many were?

Shailesh Vara: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting those facts on the record. I am, however, sorry that as he was making those points of substance, all he got was the yah-boo politics that we can expect from the Opposition. I am afraid that the truth is, as anyone watching this debate at home can see for themselves, that the Opposition do not want to know the substance or the facts. All they are interested in is the politics, but this is far too important an issue to be treated with the political naivety with which some Opposition Members are treating it. This is an important subject and the Government are dealing with it and treating it with the seriousness it deserves.

Catherine McKinnell: I thank the Minister for giving way, and he is clearly in a difficult corner, but I wondered whether he could clarify whether the Government now accept that women—well, anybody—need at least 10 years’ notification of a pension change in order to plan and prepare. If the Government now accept that, will he explain why that does not apply to this group of women?

Shailesh Vara: The hon. Lady will be aware that Governments have to take difficult decisions at times. Considering the state of the economy and the financial position that this Government came into—she will be aware that one of her own colleagues said that there was no money left—and considering the longevity of both men and women, the Government had to take difficult decisions, as all
	Governments of both shades have to. This Government had to take difficult decisions and we took them because they needed to be taken.

Tommy Sheppard: The women of this country will be watching this debate and listening to the Minister’s comments with a mixture of concern and disappointment. He is given us history lessons and is trying to apportion blame. We have a material problem now that the Government need to address, so he should stop looking backwards and start looking forwards, and start caring for the women of this country. This House has already said by an overwhelming majority that it wants the Government to look again at the transitional arrangements: has the Minister looked again at them, has his position changed since the last time this House debated the subject and will he tell us what his change of position is?

Shailesh Vara: If hon. Members did not give mini speeches in the middle of my speech, I could reach my conclusions. I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s question in due course. We cannot look at the changes to women’s state pension age in isolation without acknowledging the significant changes in life expectancy in recent years, the huge progress made in opening up employment opportunities for women and the wider package of reforms. First, on life expectancy, the reason for all these significant reforms is that people are not just living longer but are staying healthy for longer. In just a decade, the length of time for which 65-year-olds will live in good health has surged by more than a year. That is welcome news, but it puts increasing pressure on the state pension scheme, and the Government—any Government—have a duty to ensure the sustainability of the state pension system. It would have been irresponsible for this Government, or the then coalition Government, to have ignored those developments.

Nicholas Dakin: Does the Minister agree that all Governments have the responsibility to be fair to the people of this country? Women are affected by the goal posts moving, and the benefits that they would get at retirement age have gone as well. This is a double whammy for that group of women who have worked hard all their lives.

Shailesh Vara: The Government have a duty to all their citizens, and they have to take difficult decisions and perform a balancing act. It is important to bear that in mind when people are talking about spending £30 billion-plus, or £77 billion. Those are serious sums of money, and difficult decisions have to be taken to achieve that balancing act.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Shailesh Vara: I will make progress. The landscape for women and employment has completely changed since the 1940s. Female employment is now at record levels, with more than 14 million women in work—a record rate of nearly 70%. The number of older women aged 50 to 64 in work is also at a record high, with over 100,000 more older women in work than this time last year. Indeed, over the past decade, women have on average stopped working later than 60. In 2015, the average age was 63, and we know that more women than men would prefer to work flexibly or part-time before retiring.

Kevan Jones: My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) just said to the Minister that we need at least 10 years for these notifications to be brought in. Is he confirming that this group of women, some of the poorest people in the country, are paying for the planned deficit reduction? What does he say to my constituent, Jayne Manners, who is disabled and cannot make up the six years that she has lost from this scheme? What transitional help can he give her?

Shailesh Vara: The hon. Gentleman in part repeated a question that was asked earlier, and I refer him to my previous answer. I will turn to other issues later, given the opportunity to make progress with my speech.
	We need a pensions system that recognises the changes that have been made, in the same way that we have responded to the need to support older workers in the labour market. We have abolished the default retirement age and extended the right to request flexible working to all employees, and we are working with businesses to encourage the employment and retention of older workers.

Peter Dowd: On transitional funding, is it about time that the Government started tackling rich corporate tax dodgers and stopped dodging poor women pensioners?

Shailesh Vara: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is delighted that he was able to score his cheap political point.
	Let me turn to our wider reforms. We inherited one of the most complex state pension systems in the world, and too many people did not understand what they could expect upon retiring. From April this year, we are introducing a simpler state pension that will give people a clear picture of what the state will provide so that they can build their own savings. We have a triple lock, so that pensioners will see their basic state pension go up by at least 2.5% every year, as it has since 2011. That means that from this April, pensioners will receive a basic state pension that is more than £1,100 higher a year than at the start of the last Parliament. It is important for people to look at matters in a broader context, rather than in the single-issue context that many colleagues seem to be speaking about.

Sylvia Hermon: I am genuinely grateful to the Minister for at long last allowing me to intervene. In response to an earlier intervention by a Conservative Member who has now left the Chamber, the Minister replied that Ministers are always happy to meet party colleagues to discuss difficult cases. Unlike the Minister for Pensions, who sits in the other place, this Minister has refused to come to Northern Ireland and meet women who were born in the 1950s and who are adversely affected by this change. Will he please have the good grace to agree to come to Northern Ireland and meet my constituents in North Down, and other women affected by this issue, and explain why the Government will not introduce transitional measures?

Natascha Engel: Order. Before the Minister replies, 25 Members wish to catch my eye and we are hoping to have a Division at about 4:50 pm. We still have another Front-Bench opening speech, and we are getting tight on time. Interventions have been very long, but if the Minister could start concluding his remarks, we might be able to get everybody in.

Shailesh Vara: I take on board what you say, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am coming to a conclusion. I am more than happy to meet colleagues, but I am afraid the venue would have to be negotiated. It is not every day that I go to Northern Ireland, but if the hon. Lady wants a meeting with me I am more than happy to meet her here in London.
	We have ensured that more people are saving for their retirement by requiring employers to enrol their staff on to a pension with our auto-enrolment scheme. In addition to those reforms, we have continued to protect and build on a range of other pensioner benefits, including a permanent increase to cold weather payments, protection of winter fuel payments, and protection of free bus passes.

Rupa Huq: Will the Minister give way?

Shailesh Vara: I will not give way. Hopefully the hon. Lady heard what Madam Deputy Speaker directed.
	We are providing greater security and choice for people in retirement, while also ensuring that the system is sustainable for the future. That is a record on pensions and pensioners of which Conservative Members can be proud. Parliament has extensively debated accelerating the changes to the state pension age. We listened to all arguments for and against at the time of the Pensions Act 2011, and we made transitional arrangements.
	We are far behind other countries in Europe on equalisation—Germany, Denmark, the Czech Republic and Greece have already equalised the pension age for men and women. We must look to the future, not persist in looking backwards. These changes are about putting our pensions system on a secure financial footing, rather than continuous confusion for those affected and further debate. We should build on the high levels of awareness that we already have, and continue to promote flexibility, choice and security for older people. There are no plans on the part of the Government to make policy changes.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Natascha Engel: Order. Before I call the SNP spokesperson, I will impose a four-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches. If too many interventions go on for too long, I will have to bring that down.

Ian Blackford: Having listened to the Minister for 35 minutes, I cannot think of a time when I have been in the Chamber and felt so utterly depressed by what I have heard— 35 minutes to say absolutely nothing and to give absolutely no hope to those women who are facing pension inequality. Talk about a Government who are out of touch!
	The game was given away by one of the Minister’s hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries), who told the Government that she is one of the ladies who are caught up in this. The Government know who she is, where she lives and her age, but she has heard nothing. Does the Minister have anything to say to her? Absolutely nothing—just sheer contempt from this Government for the WASPI women and the WASPI campaign. He and the Government should be utterly, utterly ashamed of themselves.
	A Conservative MP asked me last night, “Why are we having yet another debate on this issue?”, and I have some sympathy with his view. We should not be having this debate for the simple and straightforward reason that the Government should have acted by now to end this injustice.
	Let us just remind ourselves of the fundamentals. We in the Scottish National party, I am sure along with everybody else in this Chamber, agree with pension equalisation—we are not debating that—but we do not support the unfair manner in which the changes have been made. The Government must explore options for transitional arrangements to protect retirement plans for the females adversely affected. The Minister tossed out the figure of £30 billion, but what he did not say is that that is £30 billion over the years up to 2026. Let me give him one suggestion. The Government are consulting on pension tax relief, which costs a gross £35 billion. Why do they not readjust that to give some hope and to deal with the problem that women pensioners are facing?

Richard Graham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Blackford: I will give way later, but I want to make some progress because I am aware of the time constraints.
	Parliament voted unanimously on 7 January for a motion that the Government should put into place mitigation for the women affected. The Prime Minister speaks about the sovereignty of this House. Why have the Government ignored that vote? Why have they ignored the will of the House? Whose sovereignty now? They cannot ignore the will of the House at random on the legitimate demands of the WASPI people. The Government are treating this House and the people of this country with contempt. Where is parliamentary democracy?

Catherine McKinnell: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the Minister has, basically, confirmed from the Dispatch Box that this disgraceful discrimination is a price worth paying for deficit reduction?

Ian Blackford: The hon. Lady makes a very good point. The women in the WASPI campaign are paying for the failures of the economic policy of this Government.
	Let me remind the House that what we have is a Conservative Government—

Richard Graham: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman did not give way earlier. I needed to correct him on a point of fact. The evidence given to the Work and Pensions—

Natascha Engel: Order. That is not a point of order. The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) can give way if he wants to, but he does not have to.

Ian Blackford: I will indeed give way because I will treat this House with respect; respect that has not been shown to the WASPI women by this Government. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) is correct.

Richard Graham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Blackford: I will give way. I will answer the point and then give way.
	Austerity is a political choice. In the election campaign, we argued that if the Government increased spending by 0.5% per annum in each year of the Parliament, they would increase spending by £140 billion but still reduce the deficit to 2% of net national income by the end of the Parliament. That is the responsible way. That would mean the Government would not be punishing the women who are affected by this. Show some leadership, Minister. Take some action and address this properly.

Richard Graham: The hon. Gentleman said earlier that the cost would be some £29 billion by 2026. He is completely wrong. The evidence to the Select Committee is that the bill in 2016-17 would be £29 billion and the total cost £77 billion. In Westminster Hall, the hon. Gentleman said that his party would commit to the policy of changing that if it were ever in the unlikely position of having responsibility for running these things itself. Will he confirm that his party leader will say, on the record, that if the SNP ever had responsibility for this, it would commit £77 billion?

Ian Blackford: Good grief! Have I ever heard such nonsense as I have just heard from the hon. Gentleman? I never committed the SNP to anything. What I did was make suggestions about what the Government may do. To toss around the £77 billion figure, which refers to the 1995 Act, is something I have never done. House of Commons Library figures show that the cost of reversing the 2011 Act would be £30 billion by 2026. Let us get the facts right. Rather than the nonsense from the Conservative Benches, we will tell the truth; they can spin the nonsense.
	The Government keep telling us that this matter was decided in 2011 and we should just meekly accept that. What arrogance! I, and every other Member elected in May 2015, was sent to this place not to accept whatever went before. We were sent here to represent the views of our constituents in this Parliament. If we want to change the 2011 Act, we can do it. The Minister should stop hiding behind that. We cannot be bound by the mistakes of past Parliaments. We are here to speak up for our constituents, to hold the Government to account and to make sure they right this wrong. My heavens, the ways of this place are archaic! It is little wonder that people in Scotland see Westminster as out of touch and irrelevant.
	Although the Government and the Minister are yet to repent, the pensions Minister in the previous Government, Steve Webb, admitted recently that the Government made a bad decision on state pension age rises. It is time not just for Steve Webb but for the Government to repent. When the Minister responsible for piloting the Bill through Parliament can see the error of his ways, surely the Treasury can recognise it has to act in the best interests of the women affected.
	When I think of the intransigence of the Treasury in not recognising its responsibility to do the right thing, I am reminded of a line that I am sure could be used in a school report card for the Chancellor of the Exchequer: we thought George had reached rock bottom; sadly, he has kept digging. This is one hole that the Government have to dig themselves out of. Many Conservative Members are hoping that this issue and the WASPI women are just going to go away. That is not going to happen. We will keep fighting for the WASPI women, because it is the right thing to do. The Chancellor has refused to act—the iron Chancellor in his bunker.
	When we start to pay national insurance, we are entering a contract with the state to receive a pension. The Government have an obligation to meet that commitment. There has to be fairness and transparency, and that is what is lacking in this case. We are asking for the Government to put in place mitigation to reflect and recognise that the pace of the pension age increase is far too steep. It is a pity, in the week that they are welcoming the fiscal framework that would allow us to proceed with the Scotland Bill, that we are not seeing pensions provision come to Scotland. One thing is crystal clear: if we had powers over pensions in Scotland we would do the right thing for our pensioners.

Graham Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm to the House whether the SNP is making a £26 billion spending commitment?

Ian Blackford: I never realised the Tories were so hard of hearing. I thought I made that quite clear in my earlier remarks, but I will do it again. We are asking for the Government to make clear what they will offer in mitigation for pensioners. I gave the example of the review of pension tax relief. If they can find the money for £176 billion for weapons of mass destruction, they can find the money to do the right thing for pensioners.

John Glen: I recognise the passion the hon. Gentleman is bringing to the debate, but I am very concerned that the WASPI campaigners will be misled and be unable to understand clearly what the SNP will commit to if it is to bring forward the amelioration it says is so necessary. If he and his party want to be taken seriously, it is incumbent upon them to have a clear, costed proposal to bring to the House today.

Ian Blackford: This is remarkable. The difference between our Government in Scotland and the Tory Government in London is that we have a Government who are popular and responsible. There is a very easy answer to this: give us the powers over pensions. Give us our independence and we will do the right thing for our people and rectify the wrong that has been done by the Conservative Government.

Clive Lewis: Conservative Members keep talking about money. That is very important, but there is another issue—fairness. Maybe you do not know, but a third of the women between the age of 55 and 59 do not work. Do you know why they do not work? Because they have ill health or are disabled. The other half are either carers or looking after people. The reality is—

Graham Evans: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you remind the House of the rules about Members making contributions when they were not in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate?

Natascha Engel: The hon. Gentleman has been in and out of the Chamber. He was here at the beginning of the debate. May I use this opportunity to calm things a little bit, so we can move on? A very large number of Members want to speak. If Members make interventions, please keep them short. May I also remind Members that they are speaking through the Chair? When they say “you” they are addressing the Chair, not hon. Members.

Ian Blackford: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I very much agree with the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), who makes very good points. It is all about unfairness to women who are really struggling, women with ill health and women who cannot work; and it is about the Government accepting their responsibilities.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Ian Blackford: I have already taken a lot of interventions and I am aware that many Members want to speak, so I shall try to get through my points as quickly as I can.
	Let me deal with the real case of women born in the early 1950s. This is something I have said before, but it needs repetition. Let us talk about women born on 10 February and let us look at the different experiences as they apply to each of the years of the early 1950s. Someone born on 10 February 1950 would have retired at age 60 in 2010. Women born a year later, however, would have had to wait almost two years longer to have retired on 6 January 2012. A woman born on 10 February 1952 would have reached state pension age on 6 January 2014, aged 61 years, 10 months and 27 days. Such a woman has had to wait an additional two years in comparison with a woman born in 1950.
	If that were not bad enough, the increase for women born in 1953 and 1954 gets much worse. Someone born in 1953 would have retired in January this year, aged nearly 63, whereas a woman born in 1954 will not reach pensionable age until 6 July 2019, when she will be aged 65 years, four months and 26 days. A woman born in 1954 has to wait two and a half years longer for their pension than someone born a year earlier. We should dwell on that point.

Patricia Gibson: Does my hon. Friend agree that as this plays out to the public, many women in the WASPI campaign who are watching our proceedings today, no doubt with huge disappointment, will be even more disappointed to see that the Tory Benches are populated almost exclusively by men, who are explaining why women born in the 1950s should not be able to access their pension? [Interruption.] I said “almost exclusively”. They are watching these detached, remote, middle-aged men explaining why they cannot access their pensions.

Ian Blackford: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I think we should all, whether we be men or women, should reflect on the unfairness. It is an issue that we should see as simply wrong, and we should deal with it, whether we be male or female.
	Let us dwell on the point. Someone born in 1953 has now retired, while someone born in 1954 has to wait until 2019. Where is the fairness in that? Let me ask Conservative Members who among them is going to defend it. I ask a Minister, a Back Bencher or any Conservative to rise to defend what the Government are doing. Why should some people have to wait so long?

Paul Maynard: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously believe, given that my constituents in Blackpool North and Cleveleys want me to be here, that I should leave the Chamber and not participate in the debate because I am a man?

Ian Blackford: I am sorry to hear that approach taken by the hon. Gentleman. I was looking for someone to defend the Government. I provided the opportunity for a Conservative Member to do so, and the hon. Gentleman failed. Everyone in this Chamber has the right to defend the interests of their constituents—we would all support that.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Ian Blackford: I want to make some progress.
	We shall see whether the House divides on the motion later, but Tory Back Benchers may well meekly trot through the Lobbies and do nothing other than support the Government over an issue that is, in our view, completely untenable. This is a debate, so I ask Conservative Members whether they will defend the Government. I will happily give way to any Tory Member who is prepared to stand up for the WASPI women in this country.

Nadine Dorries: I point out that we would like to speak in the debate when the opening speeches are over.

Ian Blackford: To defend what the Government are doing is to defend the indefensible. It is wrong; it is mean-spirited. Conservative Members should not just troop through the Lobbies without reflecting on the situation of women who in some cases are losing tens of thousands of pounds of their entitlement.
	I have talked so far about women born up to. A woman born in 1955 will not retire until 10 February 2021, aged 66 years. That cannot be right. It is far too steep an increase over a short period, and the Government must put mitigation in place. You Government Members should examine your consciences. You will have women from the WASPI campaign coming to see you—

Natascha Engel: Order. The hon. Gentleman is speaking through the Chair. When he says “you”, he is speaking to me, but I am not directly participating in the debate. I would be grateful if he would address his comments in the third person.

Ian Blackford: I apologise most sincerely for my oversight, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will make sure it does not happen again.
	Conservative Members will have women from the WASPI campaign coming to their surgeries. Let us look at what some of the woman affected have said about their real- life experiences of these changes. Here is one example:
	“My husband and I got married in 1974, he is 12 years older than me. I like to think we planned life in the right way. The pension law has put all our plans out the window. I had been planning all my available options, when my husband retired, and in 2011, I requested my state pension forecast. It stated that if I deferred till 2020 I should receive a £14,621 lump sum. I thought this may allow me the option to work two days and still enjoy my family, but thanks to the changes I will no longer receive this. Also, I hadn’t anticipated that my age might make me a prime candidate for redundancy. Losing my job in 2014, was a massive blow. The government may have changed the law, but it turns out many industries don’t want 60+ women. They are effectively retiring us, and forcing us to use our lifetime savings on daily living costs, as no one wants to hire us!”
	There are so many points to dwell on there, but most importantly, it speaks of the crushing of so many hopes and dreams.
	It is also the case that many women are being forced to work on beyond their expected retirement date, and this brings its own challenges in terms of the availability of suitable employment, and many are sadly experiencing ill health. What has been the response of the Government? It is that other benefits are available. What a response! You have worked hard, paid your dues to society, met your side of the bargain in paying national insurance and expected to receive a pension, yet this callous, heartless Government are ripping that contract up and telling folk to claim benefits. Is that really the answer? You can get means-tested benefits, which will cost the Exchequer, but you are being denied what is rightfully yours. Welcome to “Osborne’s Britain”—callous, cold and undignified.

Richard Arkless: Is not the crux of the issue that we see a clear a breach of contract? If this were a private pension company that unilaterally changed the pension conditions of 2.6 million ladies in this country, this House would quite rightly be up in arms. Those ladies want only to have that contract mitigated fairly. Surely the Government should listen to the 2.6 million ladies in this country, and act now.

Ian Blackford: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a very good point. We were talking earlier about the Financial Conduct Authority and consumer protection, yet here are consumers being ripped off by their own Government, who are ripping up entitlements to the state pension. Conservative Members should be up in arms over this; they should defend the rights of their constituents.
	Let me provide just one other example, as I am conscious of the time. Here it is:
	“My husband will be 78 by the time I can retire. I had been looking forward to slowing down at 60 and enjoying putting my family, husband, children and grandchildren at the centre of my life. In Cameron’s speech on why families matter in 2014 he stated that he wanted to do ‘everything possible to help support and strengthen family life in Britain today’. Had I been available for my grandchildren, my daughter and her husband would not have had to pay £1700 a month for her two children to go to nursery, putting them in debt. They are both teachers and could not manage their mortgage on one salary. As you can see the changes to the state pension have not supported or strengthened our family, the changes have left us in a state of disarray”—
	all thanks to this Conservative Government. That is the reality.
	As I sum up—[Interruption.] Well, I could quite happily go on if you want! What are Conservative MPs going to say to women who are going to have to wait six years longer than anticipated for their pension? This is a breach of trust between the Government and the women who have earned the right to a pension. We should recall the advice from the Turner report that such measures should be brought in over a 15-year period to mitigate the impact of any such changes.
	We have heard about the failure of communication, which it could be argued means that the start of the 15-year process should be the beginning of the changes in 2010. That means there will effectively be a retirement age of 63 for women as of April this year. The Government could, for example, look at smoothing the increase in pensionable age for women to 2025. The Government should do the right thing and immediately introduce mitigation. Now is the time to act; if not, we will be coming back to this place and fighting for the women who deserve our protection.

Nadine Dorries: I rise—finally—to express disappointment—huge disappointment. This has not been a good debate so far, and I imagine that many of the WASPI women who have been watching it on television may have switched off long ago, because the party political point-scoring on all sides has been pretty embarrassing.
	Real women are affected by this, and have real issues. It is a fact that in 1995, following the first legislative change, the Labour party had 13 years during which it did not act: it did not inform women. It is also a fact that my own party has failed women in terms of communication. As for the Scottish National party, it was not even here. So yes, there have been failures on both sides of the House. I stand here as a WASPI woman, and I have received no communication whatsoever. It is not true to say that women have been informed. It is also not true to say that there has been a wide campaign of advertisements and information on this subject. The campaign of advertisements and information was about general pension changes; it did not specifically target the group of women who have been so badly affected.
	What I want to talk about—during the very few minutes that I have left, after all the party political point-scoring—are the issues that are really affecting those women. I am going to use some words that will probably make the men cringe. Many people will think that I should not talk about such matters in the House. The fact is, however, that many women, when they reach a certain age, have health issues that men do not have to deal with. None of that is taken into consideration. If I had been here when the equalisation of the pension age was about to be introduced, I would not have supported it, because women have to deal with issues later in life that men simply do not have to deal with. Women are carers, and women in their fifties and sixties are more likely to be carers than women of any other age. It is a fact that 47.7% of breast cancer diagnoses are given to women in their fifties and sixties. Those are the real issues faced by the women out there who are affected by this legislation.
	What do we say to the woman who has had breast cancer, has had 10 courses of chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and who has now been told that she cannot retire when she thought she was going to, but has to go back to work when she is half the weight she has been at any time in her life, and is sick, and is facing worse diagnoses in the future? What do we say to women who have lost their insurance and have been blitzed with one issue after another because of their illness? There are women like that in my constituency. There is a woman in my constituency who was told by the Department for Work and Pensions that she should have been sent a letter, that in fact she had been sent a letter, and that she was telling lies. She now lives in the house that she was born in.
	These women are facing dreadful problems. They are spending hours on the telephone, trying to find out from the DWP how they are affected and what is going to happen to them. Those are the complaints that women are making. It is not about who should have done what and when, it is not about which party is to blame, it is not about who is at fault; it is about the problems that these women are facing. This is what they want, and this is what I would ask of the Minister if he had the grace to listen to my speech, as I listened to his, rather than talking to his neighbour on the Front Bench. What I would like the Minister to do, on behalf of those women, is to stand at the Dispatch Box today and make a commitment that, at the very least—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Helen Jones: Women who work for fair transitional pension arrangements have been accused by some of being emotional. There is certainly one emotion that unites most of them, and that is anger: anger about the incompetence and stubbornness that have failed to address these issues over many years, and anger about the fact that the arrangements that they made for their retirement were based on either wrong information or no information at all from the Government, and have now been overturned.
	Who are the women most affected? Many of them are carers; one lady who wrote to me is caring for a mother in her nineties. Others are women who have had to retire early because of ill health. Yet others are women who have been made redundant in their late fifties and early sixties, and there were a lot of those under the coalition Government. All of them thought that they could just about manage until their state pensions kicked in, only to find that the Government had moved the goalposts, a fact of which they had been totally unaware.
	These are also women who have been disadvantaged throughout their working lives. Many of them started work before the Equal Pay Act 1970, and certainly before the cases involving equal pay for work of equal value. Many brought up their children when there was very little childcare, and a number had to take low-paid part-time jobs to fit in with their children’s school hours. As for those who gave up work to look after their children, they were, at that time, given no pension credits for their caring responsibilities, and when they went back to work they found themselves without enough time to build up a decent private pension. Many women have now found themselves redundant, but are being kept in the workforce and put through the Work programme as if they were workshy layabouts, although they have worked all their lives.
	Ministers ought to hang their heads in shame for the way they have treated these women. It is not enough, apparently, for this Government to damage women’s prospects in every Budget they have introduced and make them bear the biggest burden of cuts; they also have to damage their retirement prospects—and this is the Government who tell us that they are on the side of strivers. Not if those strivers are women, they aren’t. They have put nearly 2.5 million women in an impossible position. So contemptuous of those women are they that the Secretary of State does not even come here to respond to debates. No doubt he is out fabricating some new fantasy about how our security is threatened by countries like Belgium and Luxembourg, those well-known bellicose nations.
	However, the real culprit, whom we have never seen at all, is the Chancellor. Like Macavity the Mystery Cat, whenever there is trouble, he is not here. It is he who decided that women should bear an unfair burden of the cuts. It is he who has made sure that they are paying the price for this Government’s policies. In future, Ministers should listen. They should come to the Dispatch Box with more than the platitudes that we have heard before from this Minister—

Rupa Huq: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Helen Jones: I am sorry; I do not have time.
	Ministers should come here and introduce transitional arrangements for these women. They have been the backbone of this country for years, many of them are saving us millions by caring for others, and they have been treated with gross unfairness and contempt by this Government.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Given that a great many Members want to speak, it would be helpful if Members did not intervene, because if they want to make speeches later, we shall be in an impossible position. If Members could shave just a little bit off their speeches, I shall try to ensure that everyone has a chance to speak.

Paul Maynard: I shall do my utmost, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	I am embarrassed to be in the Chamber today, because this debate has shamed us all. I am deeply, deeply disappointed by what I have heard. I came here today to speak on behalf of the constituents I have met who are affected by this issue. I wanted to speak about their financial security, about why it matters to them, and about why they want to be resilient and protected from unexpected shocks.
	All those I have met have been both reasonable and very frustrated. Some have been intensely angry, and understandably so. I have no doubt that more could have been done by all parties to improve communication. I am sorry that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) is laughing at me. I wish that she would not laugh at me. This is not a laughing matter. I am desperately trying to explain that I think more needs to be done on behalf of the people affected. We can review what has been done by way of communication, but that will not help those individuals.
	I wanted to look carefully at what WASPI is calling for, because of the strength of their campaign. Their petition is quite clear: it calls on the Government
	“to put all women in their 50s…and affected by the changes to the state pension age in exactly the same financial position they would have been in had they been born on or before 5 April 1950”
	My understanding, and I ask to be corrected by WASPI members themselves if I am wrong, is that that would effectively mean the restoration of the state pension age to 60 for that cohort of women. If that is the case, it is a perfectly valid argument to make, but one I cannot agree with because the cost would be too great for the Exchequer to bear.
	That does not mean that the answer is that we should do nothing. There are many ways of looking at what the transitional arrangements could be. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), who called for mitigation and transitional arrangements, but I was not clear what they amounted to. When I have had debates in the Chamber with the shadow Secretary of State, I have always found him to be a very reasonable man. From the first time we met to discuss epilepsy, I have always had a high regard for him. He came up with six options, some of which are mutually exclusive, and none of which had a price tag. Nor did he select a particular preference. However, I thought it was a useful starting point.
	I urge Members on both sides of the House to take account of this point: the more information we have, the more we can start to select which are the most appropriate methods to make progress. What problem are we trying to solve here? What are the most proportionate means of solving it? Not all those six options will address all the concerns that have been expressed to me. Some may be too costly, some may not, but we should be open to that information. The more the options can be costed, the better.
	I want to make another point to WASPI. In its evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee, it perhaps made an error of judgment in that it appeared to rule out the prospect of any use of either means-tested benefits or other pensioner benefits to adjust for some of the problems that people face. That was a mistake, because there is potential to discuss how, once people are in receipt of their pension, some way could be found to mitigate or adjust for the impact. The age at which people can claim could be brought forward, but the amount that they claim reduced. I hope that we can also look at whether the changes need to be universal or could be means-tested. Many of my most vulnerable pensioners—my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) made this point clear—are going to be the least well off. I therefore hope we can start to have a wider debate.

Andrew Gwynne: I start by offering you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the House my apologies, because unfortunately I will not be able to be here for the winding-up speeches—I am on Front-Bench duty in Westminster Hall from 4 o’clock. No discourtesy is intended either to the shadow Minister or the Minister who will be closing the debate.
	As always, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate, although I am a little saddened by the Minister’s response to what is a fairly clear motion tabled by the Labour
	Front-Bench team. We are calling on the Government to set out a process of transitional arrangements for the group of women affected, who have been served a real injustice. I am not concerned about the who, where, how or what. When my kids are squabbling, they get put on the naughty step; I am not bothered about the who, why, where or what. We are where we are, as the WASPI women appreciate. The real injustice is that they have been denied fair transitional arrangements.
	When we were discussing the pension scheme for Members of Parliament, we put in place, I accept through an independent system, a 10-year transitional arrangement, so that right hon. and hon. Members who were within 10 years of their normal retirement age were able to remain on the old House of Commons system, and the rest of us were moved on to the new IPSA system. I say to the Minister that if it is good enough for us, it is good enough for those women, and they deserve the freedom to have enough time to make alternative arrangements. Those were the arguments that were made when our pension changes came before us. There should not be one rule for us and one rule for people outside this Chamber. I argue, reasonably, that they should expect the same treatment that we expected when there were changes to our pension system.
	I realise that the Minister currently sitting on the Front Bench is not the Pensions Minister; the Pensions Minister is in the other place. I have to say, being kind to the Minister, who seemed tetchy in his response, that the fact that he was not the Pensions Minister probably showed. I will tell him what the WASPI women are calling for—I quote from their petition:
	“The Government must make fair transitional arrangements for all women born on or after 6th April 1951 who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age”.
	They are not asking for changes to legislation; they are asking for fairness. That brings me back to the motion, which will be voted on. We all have the chance in the Division Lobby later today not just to offer platitudes to the women affected but to show that we mean it. In the motion we call on the Government
	“to bring forward proposals for transitional arrangements for”
	those women, because they deserve fairness. That is why we called for this debate. I commend the shadow Secretary of State for securing it, because it allows us to have a vote and to show these women that we mean what we say.

John Glen: It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate. I rise to represent the views of Linda Anderson and others from the WASPI campaign group in Salisbury who came to see me just last week. It was clear from their representations that they feel a grave sense of injustice. They have had different experiences in what they have received over the years and in their understanding of the different entitlements they should have had, but I too have been disappointed by the lack of clarity in the alternatives that have been presented in this debate. We had a powerful speech by the SNP Front-Bench spokesman, but we did not have clarity or costings on the amelioration that his party proposes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) said, the Opposition spokesman offered a menu of options, but we did not have any price tags and we did not have any choices.
	I want to set out what I would do and say how much it would cost, because it is important that we have some integrity in addressing the campaigners who have come to see all of us. There has been far too much emotive talk from people trying to get alongside the WASPI campaigners by saying, “It is my party that will do something about this”, and making grave accusations about a Government who have made significant changes to raise pensioners’ standard of living and to put in place mechanisms to ensure that changes in life expectancy are reflected in the provision that the Government make for senior citizens.
	It is clear that the pathway to equalisation was set a long time ago, and that there was some communication after the legislation was passed in 1995, but I want to go back to the Work and Pensions Committee report in 2004. There is no ambiguity in what that report said about the Omnibus survey of women in 2004 aged 45 to 54. That survey found that 73%—nearly three quarters—of those women were aware of the changes. That was 12 years ago. I say that not to deflect from the sense of injustice of the WASPI campaigners but to suggest that there has been a range of experiences and different levels of awareness of the changes. It is therefore difficult to get absolute clarity on who knew what when.
	However, there does seem to be a real injustice for that group of people, who are now very near their pensionable age, or what they thought would be their pensionable age, which has now been extended. Their lifestyle will be compromised. Their partners or husbands are often already retired, and there will be grave implications for their quality of life. So what I propose is that the group of pensioners in that early-50s cohort are given the option to take their pension earlier. Their pension would be reduced, but it would be a relatively small amount for two or three years, and it should be cost-neutral to the Government even taking into account the cost of the administrative changes involved. That is a reasonable approach, because it says, “There’s a good chance that three quarters of you will have heard about this, but if you didn’t, this option exists.” I urge the Front-Bench team to consider that and come back at the end of the debate with its response.

Barbara Keeley: I am pleased to speak in this debate because I have heard in so many cases how the changes brought in by the Pensions Act 2011 affect the lives of millions of women born throughout the 1950s. They are unfairly bearing the burden of the personal costs of the Government’s increases to the state pension age, because many find themselves without a job, without a pension or pensioner benefits, and without money to live on, and that must focus our minds. Many of the 1950s-born women affected by the changes are living in real financial hardship.
	In our last debate on this, I asked the Minister where the work or suitable support is for women affected by the state pension age increases his Government brought in. There are 2.6 million women born in the 1950s affected by the Government’s changes, but finding suitable employment in our 60s is not the same as looking for work in our teens and 20s. The experience of my constituents is that suitable work or support programmes do not exist. These facts were known about in 2011 when the legislation went through.
	The Minister was pilloried even by MPs of his own party when he read out a list of benefits available to 1950s-born women affected by the Government’s changes. I say to the Minister that he does not realise what it means to have to go to a job centre or to be pushed on to the Work programme or to have an assessment for ESA. My constituents have told me how they feel about having to go to job centres; they feel there is no dignity in having to do that as women in their 60s, after a lifetime of working, bringing up children, and paying national insurance contributions for 40 years or more. One of my constituents told me she was pleased they had taken her off ESA
	“because it is making me ill to keep dealing with them...the way you are dealt with.”
	I have a constituent who is forced to attend the Work programme. She feels that it fails to take into account her previous experience, which is a very common feeling. She is worried about being “parked” on a programme where she has to work for free or face sanctions.
	WASPI campaign supporters have shared other stories about poor practice by Work programme providers when working with 1950s-born women. One 62-year-old woman with a full work history has reported being escorted by staff of the provider Seetec around a shopping centre with a CV to make speculative applications to managers in shops there, but the woman involved did not recognize her CV because it had been changed by the Work programme provider to disguise her age by removing her date of birth and full work history. That raises legal issues as such misrepresentation can make an employment contract void, but putting them aside we see that the Government’s acceleration of state pension age changes is pushing some women who become unemployed into such situations.
	Women affected have described the whole process as “degrading”, being “frogmarched” with a falsified CV around a shopping centre and constantly under observation. It was also humiliating for women on this programme when the same provider offered inappropriate incentives such as sweets or chocolates to “encourage” the women to apply for jobs. Women fear they will be subject to sanctions if they refuse to participate.
	We should be ashamed to have a system that treats women born in the 1950s in this way when they have worked all their lives. I have asked before why the Government have not considered different schemes to support people in their 60s. The Government have changed the situation and they should do that. Why have they not looked at a bridge pension scheme, or offering concessionary travel, or winter fuel payments?
	Throughout their lives, 1950s-born women have been disadvantaged in terms of pay and pensions. They deserve better after a lifetime of work than being frogmarched around shopping centres or offered sweets to fill in job applications. They deserve proper consideration of a lifetime of work and NI contributions: they deserve fair transitional arrangements.

Tim Loughton: I commend the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on the measured way in which she made her comments.
	I support this motion, opportunistic though it is, and it gives me no pleasure to say that I will have to vote against the Government, which is not something I make a habit of. I will do so out of loyalty to WASPI, out of support for transitional arrangements which I agree with, and because legislation needs to be fair and proportionate, and these pension changes are unfair and have fallen disproportionately on a small number of women.
	Never in my time in the House have I ever known there to be a debate on the same subject five times in the space of just two months; it has been unprecedented. There was standing room only in Westminster Hall in the last debate.
	I welcome the six options put forward by the shadow Front Bench. They are fraught with problems, but they are a starting point, and the one thing the Government have not done is come up with some options and offer to help to model them. I hope and ask for a dialogue and that we may have detail and definition. There is genuine cross-party support for getting this problem sorted out. The problem is not going to go away, as we have said before. I ask the Minister to agree that the Secretary of State will meet a cross-party delegation of hon. Members with key members of the WASPI campaign and—with the help of civil servants—cost some possible models and give their implications, so at least we can have some facts about how impractical or practical some of these things might be. That would be a helpful way forward.
	Given the time, I just want to read from a couple of letters from constituents that speak much more eloquently than I could. One of them is from a lady who said:
	“2 years before I was due to retire at 60 I found out that I had to wait till I was 66. Like many other women, not exactly what I had planned for. In fact when I started work at 15 I was always going to work till I was 60, so everything was planned for that time…
	I come from a family who believed in work, to save for the future and be independent. Despite being widowed at 22, and left with a small baby, I never accepted handouts, the only thing I had was child benefit. As a single mother, I worked and supported my son for 6 years—no tax credits. I was lucky enough to remarry when my son was 7 but still continued to work and be independent financially, which was important to me…Unfortunately after 2 bouts of cancer I finally had to stop working when I was in my mid-50s, and much against my ethos, had to claim incapacity benefit, but was again reassured that after 5 years I would receive my pension. So it was a complete shock that 2 years before I was due to receive it I find I will not get it till I am 66—if I live that long!”
	Another constituent writes:
	“I have worked as a nurse for 40 years, presently as a Macmillan Cancer Specialist.
	When I was young, I believed that my Government would look after me when I reached retirement age of 60, and I believe they had a contract with me which they have now broken, as I will be 65 years and 9 months old when I receive my State pension.
	This will cause me hardship as I grow older, and after working many years in the NHS, I really feel let down. My pension age has been changed twice, and I cannot believe that a woman born 2 years before me already receives her pension.”
	Another lady ended up after making a similar impassioned plea saying:
	“It seems that we older women who have contributed to society are considered unimportant and not worth the financial support that we have earned over the years.”
	I agree. We need to send out a very strong message to those women that we do care, and that there has been a disproportionate effect from perfectly well-intentioned changes to the pension age. Nobody disagrees with equalisation—nobody says that we need to go back to a pre-1995 level—but there is a deal to be done and a compromise to be reached. Common sense needs to break out and the Government need to listen to those on both sides of this House and to these women, because we value them and they have been affected most disproportionately by well-intentioned changes. I hope that the Minister will take away that message and that we will now be able to open a dialogue, because we are talking about real women facing real hardship after hard-working lives, when they were doing the sort of thing we encourage our constituents to do every day of the week.

Sharon Hodgson: Today, we again debate the need for transitional arrangements following the equalisation of the state pension age. Contrary to what the Minister said, everyone—including the women affected—accepts the equalisation of the state pension age for men and women in principle. However, in practice it is clear that these changes have had such a detrimental effect on the lives of a particular group of women born in the 1950s—many thousands of them up and down the country—that we must look at transitional arrangements. We can ignore this no longer.
	Like many others in the Chamber today, I have had many women from WASPI contact me at my surgeries, or via email or social media, to raise their concerns about the impact that the lack of transitional arrangements will have on their lives. In recent weeks and months, we have had many debates on this important matter, yet time and again the Government have failed to move an inch in their position and have continued to ignore the concerns of these women.
	The common theme of all the many letters I have received from constituents has been that the escalation in the equalisation of the state pension age has ruined these women’s plans, savings and, in some cases, lives. One constituent’s case stands out in particular. She was born in 1957. I will not name her, but she explained to me that she saw these changes mentioned on the news a few times but as she never received a letter, she assumed they must not affect her, as she would surely have been told if they did. She eventually received a letter in 2014. She thought it was a routine pension calculation, but it showed her state pension age as taking effect in 2023. She thought it must be an error and was horrified later to discover that it was not. What that meant for her was that instead of retiring next year, as expected and as she planned for, she has to work a further six years. She is in very bad health and could just about envisage coping until next year, when she thought her state pension age applied. However, upon the realisation of the enormity of this information and what it meant to her and her life; her health rapidly deteriorated. She became severely depressed and required medication, and I would hazard that she may never be the same again.
	No one here has a magic wand, not even the Minister, and none of us can turn back time, but just for a second, can the Minister put himself in that lady’s position? Imagine being that lady and finding out that news in that way—imagine how that would feel and imagine the shock! We—this institution, this Parliament—did that. Lots of us were not MPs in 1995, but some of us were in 2011, and the laws of the land that we make here affect people out there. Was it not our duty to ensure that these women, to whom we were about to deliver this great life-altering shock, at least knew about it? Should we not have ensured that they knew when they heard it on the news that it did indeed affect them, not because they had researched the small print themselves, but because the Department for Work and Pensions wrote to them and personally told them in good time, not as late as 2014? Surely that was the least the DWP should have done and we, Parliament, should have insisted upon it.
	As I have said, we cannot turn back time and we cannot wave the magic wand that a lot of people think we have, because we do not have one—it does not exist. But we can do something today: we can insist that the Government do something. The Minister must go away and draft, with haste, transitional arrangements for this group of WASPI women who have been failed by the system and failed by these changes. We cannot fail them today. Parliament is at its best when using its powers for the good of its people. Parliament is speaking very clearly today to the Government. It is saying, “Go away, sort this out and bring forward transitional arrangements so that these women are not left destitute in what should have been their well-earned retirement.”

Richard Graham: Nobody in this House can doubt the sincerity of the WASPI campaign or the number of women who have signed the petition, but as this is the fifth debate, we should start with what has changed since the last one. Today’s motion is all about bringing forward “transitional arrangements”, and those are the precise words used on the WASPI campaign’s petition. They sound fairly harmless, but what are these transitional arrangements?
	In the last debate, the shadow Pensions Minister, who is in her place, included a specific proposal—a perfectly reasonable one—about extending pension credit. However, that had been specifically ruled out by WASPI spokeswomen in evidence to the Select Committee. Today, the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, like the Scottish National party spokesman, talked passionately about doing the right thing, but they did not say what that was, what their commitment is or what their parties would do if they were ever in the position—in some cases, that is unlikely—of actually being responsible for the finances of the pension arrangements for the United Kingdom. There is a serious danger of Opposition Members, in their sympathy for the cause of the WASPI campaign, leading these women up the garden path—encouraging them with sympathy but giving no commitment whatsoever.
	It is important that the House understands what these women’s main ask is. It is exactly as I spelled it out from their Facebook page in the last debate. It is to ask for
	“all women born in the 50s”—
	to be—
	“in the same financial position they would have been in had they been born on or before…April 1950.”
	That is their main ask and it would reverse the 1995 Act in important ways. What would that cost? Since the last debate, the Department for Work and Pensions has provided data to the Select Committee, showing that the cost is much, much greater than any of us imagined. There would be an immediate cost of £29 billion in 2016-17—bigger than the entire budget for Scotland. The total cost up to 2020 alone would be £77 billion.
	When I discuss this issue with my wife and my sisters and others born in the 1950s and I explain to them that pensions are paid every year not out of some magic protected pot called national insurance, but out of general taxpayer-provided revenue paid by the next generation—our children and our grandchildren—none of them believes that that cost of £77 billion is remotely practicable.

Victoria Atkins: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Richard Graham: I had better not.
	That is why the Opposition will never make that proposal or agree to it under any circumstances. The question is whether any other arrangements are possible. The other potential arrangements are being considered by the Select Committee in a report on the new state pension Act, which will include a section specifically on the WASPI campaign. Members should wait until that report has come out—it will be only about three weeks from now—and the conclusions may be seen and studied by everyone, and then they will see the real impact and the real cost of some of the suggestions that have been made today.
	We should be clear about this: the WASPI campaign is genuine and it is principled. Its members care passionately. They feel that they have been badly treated, but this House has an obligation not to mislead them and pretend that things will be done when they will never be done. That is why the main ask is not possible.

Jonathan Reynolds: Sometimes a campaign captures the mood of this nation, and the WASPI campaigners have done just that. Like so much of this Government’s agenda, the speed of the transition arrangements for women’s state pensions betrays a rush to pinch pennies at too great a human expense, but the WASPI women have stung back—even more so than other groups that have been hit hard by austerity—and the wave of public support for their cause speaks volumes.
	We have a strong tradition of equality campaigning in this country. I think of the Suffragettes and their determination to given women a voice whatever the cost; the Chartists and their drive for universal suffrage and a fairer deal for working people; and the Ford Dagenham workers and their demand for equal pay for equal work. I think, too, of Stonewall and its tireless challenging of homophobia in law, schools and the workplace; and the Fawcett Society and its provocative challenge that, “This is what a feminist looks like.” Well, Mr Deputy Speaker, let me say, “This is what a feminist looks like.” Each of those campaigns was driven by anger at injustice; anger at unfairness; and anger at the unreasonableness of those in positions of power to listen to a reasonable case.
	As we have heard, moving the goalposts on state pension age equalisation so rapidly is the latest affront to a generation of women whose working lives have already been too challenging. This is a generation of women who had patchy access to maternity leave and fair pay; who had no access to shared parental leave; who often experienced harassment, bullying and discrimination in the workplace; and who regularly settled for low-paid, low-skilled jobs beneath their potential, because quality flexible working was not then an option for them. They are the generation of women who account for too few seats in the boardroom and for too few positions in industries such as engineering and construction; who finished their working lives earning significantly less than their male counterparts; and who have paid their dues and deserve a decent retirement. They deserve, at a minimum, to be able to plan their retirement with the certainty and the expectation that others have.
	It is right that the retirement age for the state pension should be the same for men and women. The WASPI campaign does not dispute that, but the pace of this change has robbed people of the time to prepare; the time to make informed decisions; and the time to honour other commitments without placing themselves in financial jeopardy. All those things have been robbed from the WASPI campaigners. Reasonable decisions about their family futures have been lost to a forced hand. More than 3,800 of my constituents are believed to be affected by this legislation—more than 5% of my electorate. Of those, a considerable 2,000 will experience a year’s increase to state pension age, and as many as 450 will experience the full 18-month delay. Several of them have contacted me to express their concerns. They include Gail Jones of Hyde and Barbara Evans of Mossley. They are women who have contributed to both the Exchequer and their communities throughout their lives, and they are now being short-changed.
	This Government have at times proven that they can acknowledge when they have misjudged a policy by retreating from their attempts to cut tax credits and to make further cuts to police numbers. The cynics among us would say that that tends to happen when the Chancellor feels it will affect his career prospects, but it is still the case that the Government have on occasions performed a U-turn. I trust that on this occasion the Minister will finally listen to the strength of feeling of Labour Members and indeed of those on both sides of the House, but especially to the passionate appeals by the WASPI campaigners, and agree to revisit the arrangements. Let us respect those women who have contributed so much to both the national purse and the national fabric.
	I hope that when the Minister comes to sum up, he will show from the Dispatch Box today that he is what a feminist looks like and will pledge to think again.

Mark Spencer: This has been an interesting debate. Parts of it have been quite poor, but it is clearly of great interest to many of our constituents.
	Many of us came into politics to do the right thing and to look after the right sorts of people. I joined the Conservative party because I wanted to ensure that people who do the right thing, go out to work and save for their future are protected and looked after in their old age. It runs deep through the Conservative party that we should look after those who have been out there and worked hard, or those who have stayed at home, looked after their children and made sure their children set off on the right path.
	Today’s debate has been a sad reflection on women who find themselves in difficult circumstances. We had to listen to 30 minutes from the Labour Front Bench of blatant party politicking about the issues and the challenges we face, without a single commitment saying what the Opposition would do. They talked about six options that were available and committed to none of them. They did not say whether they would do one of those, two or all six. It is a great shame that they did not nail their flag to the mast and say what they would do if they were in the hot seat. They left us in the hot seat.
	To be fair to the Blair Government, with the Pensions Act, they tried to engage with those people who found themselves in a difficult position, but they did not go far enough. They did not recognise the enormous time bomb that was coming as a result of demographic change, and they left us in 2010 with an enormous mountain to climb to solve the challenges arising from the fact that we all live longer and healthier lives. The coalition Government tried to close the gap by introducing the Pensions Act 2011.
	It is extremely challenging for those who find themselves on the wrong side of the line, but a line had to be drawn somewhere so that we could move the pension age up over time. I recognise that some people find themselves in difficult circumstances. I will listen to the Minister to hear whether there are ways in which we can mitigate some of the challenges that they face. We should recognise that changes have already taken place: there has been more than £1 billion of mitigation since our time in office to try to smooth the way for those people. I am enormously sympathetic to the challenges that they face, and I shall meet some of them very soon in my constituency. This debate will continue for a long time.

Mhairi Black: When I heard that we were to debate this issue again, I thought, “What am I going to talk about?” Everything is already on the record. We have already discussed how the new single tier state pension is irrelevant to the women in question and will not solve the problem. We went to great lengths to explain how nobody disagrees with equalisation and nobody is calling for Acts to be repealed.
	Then I came across a document that was sent by a Conservative MP to a woman affected. On the front page it says that the Government cannot do anything because WASPI is campaigning for all women born after April 1951 to be given their state pension from age 60. No, that is not what WASPI is asking for. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) talked about misleading people. That is misleading. Nobody is against equalisation.
	On Monday I attended a media training course, where we were taught how to look at the camera, where to put our hands and so on. One of the guys taking the course said, “If you, as politicians, ever find ourselves in a difficult situation where you realise you’re in the wrong and you need to get through an interview, just start talking about what you want to talk about.” It struck me immediately that that is what this Government are doing; every single time we talk about this, they start talk about things that are completely irrelevant.
	The second page of the document states: “The national insurance credits are available for many people to help them build entitlement towards state pension. National insurance payments also impact on entitlement to a range of other benefits.” Pensions are not a benefit; they are a right. One of my constituents described them as a contract, and that is exactly what they are. Let me make this very simple. Everybody here has a phone—in fact, some of us are sitting with our iPads right now—and we all have contracts for those. If O2, Virgin or Three were to change the terms and conditions of our contracts, we would have something to say about it. If they waited 14 years to tell us about those changes, we would definitely have something to say about it. If they said, on top of that, that we would be forced to live off our life savings as a result of those changes, we would be up in arms about it, and rightly so. So why are pensions any different?
	We hear all the time, “Where is the money going to come from for that?” The truth is that this comes down to austerity, and it is austerity of choice. Those on the Government Front Bench can roll their eyes all they want, but this is a choice. I am yet to hear a general or a Defence Minister say, “We can’t bomb that country because we’ve exceeded our budget.” When we want to bomb Syria, we can find the money. When we want to refurbish Westminster, we can find the money. But when it comes to giving our pensioners their pensions, we cannot find the money? I just do not accept that.
	This debate reminds me of the tax credits debate. We were making all these arguments about how unfair the situation was, and the Government responded with exactly the same argument: “We don’t have the money.” Then, when the heat was turned up and political pressure was put on them, all of a sudden they put their hand down the back of the couch and said, “Okay, we can afford it now, so let’s just do a U-turn,” and rightly so.
	That brings me to my last point. How can we ignore the will of this House? We have debated this matter in this Chamber and voted by 158 to 0. How can we ignore that? We debated it in Westminster Hall, which was packed to the gunnels, and almost everybody who spoke was against the Government. They cannot continue to ignore the will of this House. I am no fan of Westminster—that will come as no surprise—because I think it is more about ego than it is about issue, but the truth is that even the most politically savvy minds must be able to see that this is not party political. We have a chance to come together and do something that will earn us respect. I think that the Government should take that chance and act.

Huw Merriman: In the past few months I have met a number of constituents who have been impacted by these changes. They detailed how the increases in the state pension age have had an impact on them owing to their being on the wrong side of the dateline. I have every sympathy with them, and I understand their frustration.
	I spoke during the Back-Bench business debate on this matter on 7 January, and I congratulated the WASPI campaign on driving the debate. Although it is true that any criteria changes regarding pensions, benefits or taxation in general are always going to have an impact on some people, I am conscious that many of the individuals we are talking about have worked for decades on the basis that they would receive their pensions at a prescribed time. However, I am also conscious that when actuaries calculated life expectancy, and therefore the number of years for which a pension would pay out, they did not expect it to reach the level that many currently enjoy, and they would not have anticipated the current rising levels of health. Those factors have driven successive Governments, and most OECD nations, to increase the pension age.
	The issue I have with the motion is that it deals with legislation that was settled in previous Parliaments. It implores the use of
	“transitional arrangements for women adversely affected”.
	My understanding is that when the last set of changes were made in 2011, a transitional programme was implemented, to the tune of over £1 billion. In order to manage expectations, it would be better if the motion had recognised that changing these rules for those impacted would cost £39 billion and then outlined where the additional money would be saved in Government spending in order to pay for it to be delivered. I spoke earlier today about the need for the Government to continue to support spending on mental health provision, particularly for young people. Would that be hit? Would it be the police budget, the subject of the next Opposition day motion, which is critical about the lack of funding?
	I stood on a manifesto commitment pledging the delivery of a budget surplus by 2020, which means that compensation in this matter would have to be paid for by another group of my constituents. Opposition parties also attempted to cost their commitments in their manifestos. I do not recall finding a commitment to reverse this policy, and it concerns me that we are not managing expectations. This issue is already settled, and none of the parties seeking to reopen it have explained where the £39 billion hit would be taken were we to rip up the equalisation rules.

Victoria Atkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because it enables me to make the point that I wanted to make to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black). To put this in context, if we compare the £39 billion with the approximately £120 billion annual spend on the NHS, we begin to see how difficult it is to make the sums add up. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Huw Merriman: I absolutely do. When it comes to footing the bill, I also have concerns about another age group in my constituency—those in their 20s and 30s. They are sometimes referred to as the packhorse generation because they are saddled with debts from university, which I, and many others of my age group and those older than me did not have to endure; they are less likely to be in receipt of occupational pension schemes; they are paying high rents and struggling to afford a home of their own; and they are likely to be the subject of pension changes in decades to come, if life expectancy continues to increase.
	Half-measured mitigation, even if it were introduced, would reveal the next pension age group to be impacted, and we would never be able to move on. The issue of pensions is becoming increasingly vexed. Post-retirement life expectancy is undoubtedly much greater than was envisaged when pensions calculators were put in place. Additionally, with advances allowing those in their sixties to remain fit and active, many people in their sixties and beyond are working in a manner that was not envisaged when those pensions calculators were put in place.
	There has been a general change in life and working-age expectancy, which we all rightly celebrate because it shows that many people are living longer and leading fitter lives in their advanced years. However, it also means that there is a funding gap, and to avoid placing a financial obligation on those in their 20s and 30s, who are struggling to get on, the country has had to revise the pension age to take into account the changes in life and work expectancy.
	This is a settled matter. Until it can be explained to me which of the current spending commitments will be axed to cover the cost of this £39 billion change, I cannot support this motion.

Kate Hollern: It has been interesting to hear the passionate arguments on this issue. The first thing we have to point out is that this is a political decision: you guys in government decided where the cuts would come. We are not asking Ministers to put £39 billion in; we are saying, “Don’t take it out. Have a transitional arrangement.”
	Over the last few months, people have been queuing up at my surgery. The 3,800 in Blackburn affected by this change feel that the Government have moved the goalposts; they thought they had a contract with the Government, but it seems not. These are the same women who had to give up their jobs in their early working lives. There was no such thing as maternity pay; women gave up their job and applied for it when they were ready to go back and if one was available. These are the same women who were not protected by equal pay—who earned a lot less than their male counterparts—and who were less able to join a private pension scheme. Nevertheless, these women recognised the problem and tried to fill the gap. They did not want to be a burden on society, so they made arrangements. After working 45 years, they are entitled to a pension they were promised—but it seems the Government do not think so.
	The people I have spoken to feel they have been misled, misinformed and, in a number of cases, not informed at all. They feel the Government are forcing changes on them. As everyone else has said, nobody is objecting to equality. What we are objecting to is thousands of people having difficult financial circumstances imposed on them.
	One of my constituents, Kath, came to see me. She was very upset. She felt frustrated that the Minister did not understand the impact the changes would have on her life. She said:
	“Had I been born 12 months earlier my retirement age would have been 4 years sooner. Can that be right?”
	Why is the burden of the increase falling over such a short period? That cannot be right and it is unfair—surely any intelligent person can see that. Kath has an additional problem: the DWP cannot predict her pension because for a number of years she was in an opt-out situation. Is that fair? Kath is a widow and has worked all her life in a range of jobs, from the NHS to the banking sector to self-employment. She now finds that everything she has worked for has been put on hold and she will have to struggle on for a few more years. She feels that this is a very sad state of affairs and wants to know why this Government are penalising her for working hard all her life.
	Some transitional arrangements must be put in place, because women all over the country have been put in the same difficult circumstances as those in Blackburn. It is not too late for these women; it is not too late to right the wrong. Transitional arrangements should be made, and should be made now.

Graham Evans: The need for equalisation of the state pension age is evident. We have an ageing population. People are living healthier, longer lives, with an ever-greater proportion of the population drawing a pension while an ever-smaller proportion are contributing through national insurance. Without equalisation, the system risks becoming increasingly difficult to afford. At my help and advice surgery in Frodsham last month, a constituent of mine, Barbara, came to speak to me about this issue. Barbara is 59, turning 60 this year, and she had been expecting to retire at 62. It was not until recently that she realised she would have to wait until she was 66 to retire. The majority of the anger at these changes lies in the lack of notification.
	Following the changes of 1995, the DWP issued a leaflet, among other press and publicity measures, including direct mail, to advise the public of those changes. In 2004, it ran an information campaign, distributing over 2 million pension information guides, alongside adverts in the press and women’s magazines, to complement an interactive online state pension age calculator. In addition, all state pension statements issued from 2001 included the new state pension age, as determined by the 1995 changes, as standard. Since then, over 11 million statements have been issued. Those affected by the 2011 changes were written to directly. This involved sending out more than 5 million letters between January 2012 and November 2013. I note that for those of us due to retire at 65, within the past three years the age has gone from 65 to 66, and it is now 67 for men and women born in the 1960s and onwards. Had those efforts been fully successful, however, we would likely not be here now debating this subject, and I believe that this is the fourth debate we have had on it in as many months.
	The WASPI campaign has called on the Government
	“to put all women in their 50’s affected by the changes to their state pension in exactly the same financial position they would have been in had they been born on or before 5 April 1950.”
	Those who plan towards their retirement want to live the retirement they planned for. Following the 2011 changes, the Government passed an amendment to the legislation that provided £1.1 billion of transitional funding and delayed the equalisation of the state pension age, on top of bringing the new state pension forward by a full year. However, undoing the 2011 changes would cost £30 billion, in addition to a loss of £8 billion in tax revenue, and undoing the 1995 changes would cost several times that—£70 billion-plus. The new state pension, which has been brought forward by a year, will come into effect in April this year. It will see many woman significantly better off than they would have been under the old system, with £416 a year more than they would have had. Likewise, the introduction of the triple lock, which ensures that the state pension goes up by whichever is highest out of inflation, wages or 2.5% means that the basic state pension will be over £1,100 higher than it was at the start of the previous Parliament.
	The lesson to be learned by Governments of all colours is that of effective communication. Pensions are complicated at the best of times, and I have a huge amount of sympathy with that. I believe that it is the fault of Governments of all colours, not just the Conservative Government. WASPI women will receive an improved pension before the men and women who will now retire at the age of 67. WASPI women will live longer, on average, than men. The Government’s pension reforms are fair for those who receive them and for the younger generation who will have to pay for them.

Nicholas Dakin: Usually, when somebody says to me, “So-and-so is being a bit waspy,” it is a signal to tread with some care, so when I was told that a load of women who were concerned about this issue were coming to see me at my surgery on Friday, I trod with sufficient care. I was able to tell them that I spoke on Second Reading of the 2011 Act to point out that the women who left Foxhills comprehensive in my constituency in 1970 were the very women who would be affected, that it was not fair and that, frankly, there needed to be a better deal than two months’ transitional mudge.
	I am aware that we are short of time, so I will just give a voice to those women. Marie Spikings said to me:
	“My personal story began when I was 15 years old, leaving school at Easter with no qualifications. From the start of my working life at 15 years I paid a full National Insurance stamp believing that I was entering into a contract.”
	That is a common belief. She continued:
	“I understand the need for equality, however the 2011 Act has given me no time to prepare for working until I am 66! Not only have I lost thousands of pounds but also the benefits that come with the state pension e.g. heating allowance and bus pass etc.”
	That is a key point about the other allowances, from which those women are now debarred. She told me:
	“I am a single parent through no fault of my own. Day to day life is a struggle as I have a dependent child, and a disabled dependent adult child. I am tired and the thought of having to work for another 5 years is daunting to say the least.”
	Christine said to me: “I feel trapped.” Her choices have been taken away from her.
	Annette said to me:
	“I was born in May 1954 and my state pension date has been moved twice, the first time I was informed in writing that it was changing from my 60th birthday to my 64th year. Since then I had heard nothing until someone told me to check the website by entering my DOB. The date for my state pension then came up as January 2021 another 18 months on. I am sure you will agree this is completely unfair”.
	That is an example of the poor communication that we have heard about. Another woman pointed out to me that her older sister, who was born in April 1952, has already received her state pension. The woman who wrote to me is 22 months younger than her sister and has to wait an extra five years and five months—not fair and not reasonable. I could go on to give many similar examples.

Christina Rees: There are 3,540 women affected by the changes in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that the 1995 changes were reasonably well communicated, but the 2011 changes were badly communicated? Some women who are affected by the 1995 changes were also affected by the 2011 changes, which compounded the issue.

Nicholas Dakin: My hon. Friend has it spot on. Communication, as the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) said, is one of the issues at the heart of the matter. What happened in 2011 compounded what had happened previously, and the situation is totally unfair.
	The debate has been quite good since we got to the Back-Bench speeches, although my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) did a good job of kicking things off. I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who drew attention to my hon. Friend’s six suggestions and said that they were a good starting point. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said that there was a deal to be done, and I think he is right. The hon. Members for Salisbury (John Glen) and for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) encouraged Ministers to find a way to put right the injustices.
	The women we are talking about are not asking for the world. They are not even asking for the things that some people have suggested that they are asking for. They are simply asking for a reasonable settlement and a reasonable deal, which is what they deserve.

Carolyn Harris: Women of a certain age, of which I am one, from right across the United Kingdom are very angry about the position they find themselves in. If they were born in March 1953, like Jill in the Jack and Jill twins scenario, they will be absolutely livid, because Jack will get £155 a week under the single-tier state pension, while Jill will get £131, because she was born a woman. Where is the justice in Jack getting £20,000 more over 20 years than his sister Jill? That is just ridiculous.
	We all know women who do not have access to a private pension and who find themselves being forced to look for work or—if they take the advice of the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), who is no longer in his place—they can sign on for JSA. It is a slap in the face for every woman who has dedicated themselves to being the backbone of this country. The absence of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions—my eyes tell me he is loitering outside the Chamber, but he is obviously unwilling to come in to defend his Government’s policies—is an absolute insult to these women.
	I am aware of a 60-year-old woman who has had to find employment as a bus escort for a special needs school. That involves physically manoeuvring youngsters from the vehicle into the building. It is hard, heavy and demanding work. How do I know that? Because I did that job in my thirties; I could not do it now.
	The changes to women’s pensions are categorically unfair and unjust. Everyone in the Chamber, and indeed everyone across the country, will have heard about the WASPI campaign. We have heard all the analogies about a sting in the tail and a buzz in the air, but did any of us really think that in three short months we would have debated this issue so many times? That is the power of this lobby. It has proved time and again that it is fighting on a platform that resonates right across this country.
	Everyone will know at least one woman affected by this injustice. Such women are only asking for fairness. They have been betrayed, they have been discriminated against and they have been seen as a soft option by this Government. They were seen as the one group that could be pushed to one side to rush through the transition to equal retirement ages. The Government thought they would save money, but in reality they have lost credibility and respect, and they have been exposed by this wonderful group of strong women as petty, arrogant and, quite frankly, ridiculous.

Julie Cooper: I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this important issue. I thank the women of the WASPI campaign for their tireless efforts in persisting in bringing this issue to the Government’s attention. I want to speak for the women in my constituency of Burnley, and for the thousands of women who will be affected. There has been much talk about the financial impact of the change and what the cost will be, but let us not forget that these women are taxpayers who have worked hard and paid in. They are asking not for a benefit, but for a right to which they are entitled.
	I want to talk about the impact on people. I have talked to women in my constituency who are physically struggling every day to cope with their physical jobs. One lady I spoke to during my surgery at the weekend was in tears as she told me about her many years of working in an engineering foundry. She is staggering on towards her retirement age. She is in bed at 7.30 every night, having been barely able to make it to the bus station to get the bus home. She has spent long years working on the minimum wage, and the only light at the end of the tunnel was retirement at the age of 60. She thought that she might just be able to stagger on until then. However, not only have the goalposts been moved, but there just has not been any communication with her. Let us not get into the blame game of arguing about whose fault it was or was not that she did not know, but the fact is that she did not know.
	There has been a lot of talk about what happened in 2011 and in 1995. I was not a Member of Parliament then. I would say that we are where we are. Let us tackle the problem we have in front of us now. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have made sensible suggestions about sitting down together with the WASPI women, around the table, on a cross-party basis and without scoring political points, to work out a solution to this terrible mess.

Hywel Williams: I congratulate WASPI on its highly effective campaign, particularly all the women from my constituency who have contacted me or come to my surgeries. Women across the UK have been hit hard by the changes. To the surprise and dismay of many of them, the plans that they had made have been disrupted. Often, they face unemployment, with little hope of getting a job—a bleak life on benefits at a time when they should be enjoying the fruits of their long years of work.
	Plaid Cymru supports the principle of equalising the pension age. Equalisation is another step towards recognising how radically circumstances have changed since the pension was brought in by my predecessor as the Member for Caernarfon, Lloyd George, when men worked for the money and generally supported women, and women worked at home for free. Those are not the circumstances now. It is not equalisation that is so unfair but the way in which the Government are bringing it in.
	The Government say that they are making these changes in response to the increase in life expectancy. As one woman who contacted me said, “That’s all right then—it’s our fault for living longer.” Both life expectancy and life experience vary significantly depending on class and, crucially, on where one lives. Women in Wales will be hit particularly hard by the changes. Life expectancy is generally lower in Wales than in England—there is a difference of up to 11 years. Welsh women and Welsh men therefore have less opportunity to enjoy their retirement. Incomes in Wales are also low, so they have already suffered a disproportionate disadvantage. There are fewer job opportunities and jobs are more insecure, particularly in some constituencies.
	On Monday, I asked the Prime Minister about the fate of the EU convergence funding that we in Wales won after a long and hard fight. He smiled sympathetically and went on to talk about Romania and Bulgaria. Disgracefully, that is where the incomes of women and men in Wales are—on a par with those in Romania and Bulgaria. Wales has the lowest income per head of all the UK nations and regions.
	The equal treatment of women and men in respect of the state pension is good, but the way in which the Government have handled the matter is not. In fact, it is a disgrace.

Rupa Huq: Mr Deputy Speaker, 1950s-born women are not usually seen as a militant group. They were born and raised in the era of “Hi honey, I’m home,” spotless perfection, domestic bliss and Formica, but the situation they now find themselves in is far from perfect.
	I have only been an MP since May, but, as several Members have mentioned, including the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black), this feels a bit like groundhog day. This is the third time I have raised the matter, and at other times I could not even get into Westminster Hall because it was standing room only. The TV show “Desperate Housewives” comes to mind, although the valiant WASPI women are far from desperate.
	The Government have to act. The public are making their voices heard, and the Government are on the wrong side of public opinion. It feels like groundhog day because not only is what we are saying falling on deaf ears, but there is a broken record routine in the way we are told that there is no money left. At the same time, we constantly hear that economic growth is returning and things are looking rosy. The two things cannot be reconciled with each other.
	The people we are talking about have been hit twice, as everyone has said. “Double-whammy” is the phrase that keeps coming up in the emails that I receive. They were hit in 1995 and 2011. I have heard the rejoinder from Government Members that the 1997 Labour Government did not do anything about the 1995 changes, but surely the Conservative Government and civil service of that time should have put a work plan in place. We hear that not all people were notified, but there should have been some provision in place for that to keep happening. Presumably because that Government were saving money on their communications strategy or something, that did not happen. Anyway, as many people have said, we are where we are.
	Like many Members here, I have received representations from many people, including Michele Carlile, who was born in 1954, and Linda Gregory, who was born in 1953. Some have pointed out that they started work at 15. One of them said to me, “That’s probably a good 10 years before you did, my dear.” The circumstances that these people faced was different from what happens today. We must remember that the Equal Pay Act 1970 did not come into force until a Labour Government made it happen in 1976. These people brought up children before the free childcare and nurseries and all the other things that Labour Governments have brought in. We should therefore be sympathetic to their plight.
	I think that in this debate people have confused the WASPI petition and the wording of the motion. Nobody is arguing against equality. Nobody is saying that there should be compensation at the levels that these people would have received. All that is being asked for is transitional arrangements to soften the blow. Some of the people in the campaign have been neutral money people, such as Paul Lewis of the BBC’s “Money Box”, a former constituent of mine, and Martin Lewis of moneysavingexpert.com.
	I urge Government Members to vote with us tonight, simply for transitional arrangements, since this Government have found so much money down the back of the sofa for so many things. The former Pensions Minister in the coalition, Steve Webb, has admitted that people are hard done by, so in the 17 seconds that I have left, let me say that this great pensions swindle must end now.

Gavin Newlands: I welcome the opportunity to make another contribution on this matter. I also want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the WASPI campaign for refusing to lie down and for continuing to fight for a transitional arrangement that will protect against the most damaging consequences of the rushed equalisation of the state pension.
	All these women are asking for is fairness, and I commend them for keeping the issue alive. This is the fourth time that it has been debated in the House, which shows the strength of feeling, exposes the injustice of the situation and highlights the struggles that many women face daily from the delay in receiving the state pension. I accept that a lot of the damage was done in the 1995 Act, but the coalition Government exacerbated the situation and this Government’s refusal to rectify the blunder is not only political folly but plain wrong.
	These women have paid into the system all their lives, and it is only right that the Government should step in to right this wrong. Responding to the motion, the Minister shamefully chose to repeat the accusation that WASPI is against the equalisation of the pension age for men and women. No, it is not. The Minister knows that. To use that line of argument again does a disservice to today’s debate, to the women sitting in the Gallery right now and those watching the debate at home, and to the struggles that they face as a result of the rug being pulled from under their feet just when they needed the support most. Furthermore, I was hoping that the Minister would give Members and, more importantly, the WASPI women a better response to today’s debate than the quite frankly pitiful response given in the petition debate in Westminster Hall. Sadly, I was wrong.
	I run 13 surgeries a month across Paisley and Renfrewshire North, and over the past two to three months the majority of people attending them have raised this very issue. On this occasion, I want to take a little more time to highlight some of the heartbreaking stories I have heard. Many women were looking forward to having some more time to themselves, only to find out with a couple of months’ notice that they were not retiring at 60 as they had thought.
	There are two ladies whose stories I want to highlight. One, who did not want her name mentioned, recently came to see me at a surgery. She has worked all her life, from the age of 17, and built a career for herself that she had to give up to care for her husband. Even while she was caring she worked part time, and she has never been on benefits. She stopped working at 58 because of her health, thinking that she would get both her state pension and her small civil service pension at 60. She has never received any letters from the DWP and only found out about the changes to her pension age through word of mouth.
	Another constituent, Ms Millar, also received no letter. The changes have had a devastating impact on her finances, forcing her to sell her car and her house to be able to cut down on her work in the future. She has suffered from ME since she was 30, which makes it difficult for her to continue working as a teacher. Is the Minister listening to this? No. I think that he owes Ms Millar the courtesy of listening to my speech. She will now have to work a lot longer than she had anticipated, and she also has caring responsibilities, caring for her mum three days a week. The fact that she now needs to work six years longer than expected means that she has six fewer years to spend full time with her mum.
	I challenge the Minister to respond to my constituents and advise them what they should do to ease their financial worries, bearing in mind their poor health and personal circumstances. My constituents are watching the debate, WASPI campaigners are watching the debate and the women in the Public Gallery are watching the debate. We are all waiting for the Government finally to wake up to the situation, show some humility and respond appropriately.

Patricia Gibson: Previous speakers have already said that pensions are not a benefit but a contract, and the Government have broken that contract. If that were done by a private company, it would be sued for mis-selling. When the terms of a contract change, there must be notification—actual notification, not Westminster politicians talking to each other—and mitigation when someone is disadvantaged. In this case, the Government must take responsibility and correct that.
	What is the future for our pensions system if citizens cannot trust Government promises that when they pay in, they will receive their due amount at an agreed time? The situation reminds me and my constituents of someone who buys a car from a used-car salesman, but the car turns out to be dodgy. They bring it back, and the used-car salesman looks at it, scratches his head, and says, “I’d really like to help you out, but I just can’t.”
	We are told that the Government will not move to put in appropriate transitional measures, but the greater cost of not acting is that of betraying all those women, many of whom spent a lifetime in low pay—we are literally picking their pockets and further alienating people from the cosy, Westminster establishment. We are told that money for transitional arrangements cannot be found, but I suspect that if companies such as Google paid their taxes, the Government would find that they had more money in the pot. Choices, choices—politics is nothing if it is not about choices. If the Government do not act on this issue, they have no alternative but to hang their head in shame.
	The WASPI campaigners are calling for a review into the way that changes to the state pension age were implemented under the Pensions Acts of 1995 and 2011. What is wrong with that? Other European Governments have brought in pension equalisation arrangements without the distress, chaos and rammy created by this Government as they try to pick women’s pockets. Why is that? It is because other European Governments have not made a Horlicks of it. This is both cock-up and incompetence writ large.
	I am sick to the back teeth of hearing Government Ministers boasting of a new flat-rate pension of £155.65 a week. Apart from the fact that that is utterly irrelevant to this debate, many people who reach pension age will receive much less than that because they will not have paid enough national insurance. Those in the private sector, the low-paid and those earning less than £15,000 a year will be hit hardest, and those people are much more likely to be female than male.
	An independent commission is required to prevent further gender inequalities and ensure a fair universal pension system that looks at the looming injustices coming down the track in the form of the flat-rate pension, which will leave many low-paid people on lower pensions than they would otherwise have benefited from. So far, the Government have not listened to the
	WASPI campaigners or to votes taken in this House, but I urge them to do so. We require fairness and natural justice, and it is time that the Government held their head up and faced these women.

Alan Brown: This is the fourth WASPI campaign debate that I have spoken in, and it is hard to find something new to say. I note that the Minister had the same problem, because his earlier performance at the Dispatch Box was a disgrace. He said that he would talk about transitional arrangements, but he did not—he avoided the matter the whole time, took interventions and fudged the issue. Let me remind him of a suggestion that he made in a previous answer to an oral question, when he said that women could use the pension freedoms to help themselves bridge the gap and transition to state pension age. For me, that shows that he does not understand that women are less likely to have pensions, and that the pensions they do have are more likely to be low in value. To suggest that women should blow their savings as a remedial measure, instead of the Government helping out, is crazy and irresponsible.
	I also want to make the Minister aware of another ongoing issue that could compound matters and affect people’s choice, namely the exit payment gap in the Enterprise Bill. The cap in its current format will further limit the choices for people considering early retirement or voluntary redundancy. The £95,000 cap will affect not the so-called fat cats but long-serving, lower paid workers. The cap in its current format covers the strain on pension funds that an employer requires to pay for early and ill-health retirement. That means that people taking ill-health retirement might have the money due to them capped because of this Government. That compounds matters. The exit cap prevents councils, such as the local authority I was a councillor for, from operating schemes such as Teacher Refresh, which allows higher paid experienced teachers to opt for early retirement. That allows younger teachers to be employed, saving the taxpayer money overall and creating jobs for younger teachers. Combine the cap with the increased retirement age and we have a bad deal for individuals—mainly women—a bad deal for local authorities, and a bad deal for the taxpayer overall.
	Another impact of the increase in the state pension age in the 2011 Act is that it can make women more dependent on male partners. That is bad for personal esteem, bad for relationships and potentially damaging in cases of domestic abuse where women feel trapped financially. Women are concerned and are feeling stress due to the bombshell that has been dropped on them. Instead of ignoring what is going on and ignoring the four debates, the Government should think about the consequences and do something about them.
	The Government hide behind the £30 billion estimate to fully reverse the 2011 Act. People today are asking for transitional arrangements, but the £30 billion to do a full reversal could be found. The Government found an extra £16 billion in the defence review for Trident, to add to the £167 billion that had already been committed. They have allocated £12 billion for the right to buy social housing. They could introduce a bank levy and a mansion tax. They could reverse the inheritance tax and stop adding more people to the other place. Those are all choices to spend more money or subsidise other policies, while introducing austerity in other ways.
	The Government have already lost court cases relating to the personal independence payment and the bedroom tax. There is a great chance they will lose another court case due to the unfairness of this measure and the lack of notice given to women. As has been said, this is a breach of contract. I ask the Minister to please take that into account and to put in place some transitional arrangements.

Liz McInnes: I am pleased to finally be able to take part in this debate on transitional state pension arrangements. As many hon. Members have pointed out, we have had many debates recently on the subject of women’s state pension age inequality. Now, however, we are talking about practical solutions and considering seriously transitional arrangements. Remember, this is transition—it is not for ever and it will not cost £30 billion or £39 billion, or whatever other figure has been floating around the Chamber. Transitional payments will help all the women born in the 1950s who have suffered the double whammy of the 1995 and 2011 Pension Acts. Those women have emailed, written, phoned, Facebooked and tweeted me, and many of my fellow MPs, on seeing their retirement plans disintegrate.
	The basic issue here is fairness. All we are asking is for the women affected to be treated fairly. This group of women have not been communicated with properly. Many of them tell me that they either did not receive letters or that the letters they did receive were unclear. Contrary to the view held by some in this Chamber, the WASPI campaign is not asking to go back to receiving state pensions at 60. What they are asking for is simply fair treatment. These are women who work part time and who were not even eligible for their occupational pension schemes when they started work. These are women who gave up work to bring up children, which affected their personal occupational pension if they were lucky enough to have one. These are women who have worked in difficult conditions, many of whom have had to retire early because of ill health. These are women who, as well as bringing up children, are now shouldering the burden of caring for elderly relatives in their later lives. These women have all been through the doors of my surgeries in my constituency, and I am sure their story is familiar to all right hon. and hon. Members. My constituents frequently urge me to take this argument to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions—[Interruption.] I have extreme difficulty doing so, because he has not attended a single one of the many debates we have had on this subject.
	Jackie, one of my constituents, introduced herself to me as “June ’54 and furious!” She made the valid point that denying her access to her state pension until she is 66 also denies her entitlement to concessionary travel and the winter fuel allowance. Jackie started work in 1971, but had to take early retirement from the police service in order to care for an elderly relative.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), the shadow Secretary of State, has made six helpful suggestions about how fair transition could be put in place to help women such as Jackie. Let us stop prevaricating. I await the Minister’s response to those sensible and reasonable suggestions, which— I might add—have been supported by many
	Government Members. Let us help to turn Jackie from being “June ’54 and furious!” to “June ’54 and finally fairly transitioned”.

Mark Durkan: In common with others, I regret that much of the debate from the Dispatch Box was focused on fixing the blame rather than fixing the problem, but at least the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) put forward a six-pack of options, which he rightly asked the Government to consider. Let us remember that the salient point about the motion is that it
	“calls on the Government to bring forward proposals for transitional arrangements for women adversely affected by the acceleration of the increase in the state pension age.”
	That is logical, reasonable and compelling, which is why the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) is prepared to support it. I ask some of his hon. Friends to join him in supporting it, not least those who valiantly fought over Equitable Life and called on the taxpayer to restore Equitable Life members to some position of equivalence. If they were prepared to fight for the Equitable Members Action Group and were indignant over Equitable Life, they should not be indifferent to the WASPI women and what they face. We should respond to them with justice.
	It is not just a matter of a breach of trust and a breach of contract, because there is also the question of moral hazard. If Parliament says, “We can be quite capricious with the state pension”, we send out a signal to all the private pension providers that they can do what they want, that politicians will be in no place to reprimand them and that the regulator will not be able to interfere. We send out a very dangerous signal, too, to those younger people who were encouraged to have confidence and show responsibility in their pension planning. We send out a signal to them that what happened to their mothers shows that even when provision for pensions is made, people do not get what they thought they were going to get. It says that the pensions rules can be changed, so younger people will ask why bother with them—just see what they get when they get there.
	We should not offer the mixture of conceit and deceit that we heard from some Conservative Members. We were told by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) that the matter is settled and therefore cannot be touched. When was it settled? It was settled by Parliament in 2011, and he argued that it was the settled will of Parliament, which cannot be touched. These are the same people who tell us about parliamentary sovereignty and how one Parliament cannot bind another. They tell us that they want to stand up to the EU all over the place, but they are of course hiding behind a completely false explanation of EU rules and EU requirements in defence of this injustice.
	This is an intentional injustice that has been visited on these women. It is not just, as the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer) tried to tell us, that a line has to be drawn somewhere. These are not just haphazard victims of a drive-by cut in the name of austerity; they have been carefully selected and calculated as the victims. Why? These women have been used to inequality and injustice all their lives; they have been on the receiving end of inequality in respect of gender pay gaps and denial of access to second pensions at a time when their male colleagues were given access to them. The aim now seems to be, “Let’s give them one more twist of injustice in the name of equalisation as they come to the end of their working lives.” That is an absolutely travesty; it offers people stone for bread. This Parliament should be doing better than that.
	As for the “settled will”, legislation that is currently going through Parliament will change legislation that was passed in the last Parliament. The Financial Services Act 2012 and the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 were passed in the last Parliament, and they are being changed by legislation that is going through the House now. The Enterprise Bill is changing legislation that was passed in the last Parliament. The Trade Union Bill is changing legislation that was passed in the last Parliament. Yesterday we debated the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, which, of course, is also changing legislation that was passed in the last Parliament. The Government can change legislation to introduce cuts, but they cannot change legislation to bring justice to people.
	We should compare the present position with the position in 2011. What we have now are pension freedoms, and a tax windfall for the Treasury. The Government should bear in mind the new fiscal ambit that comes with those pension freedoms, and use it to introduce pension justice—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I call the shadow Minister.

Angela Rayner: It is absolutely great to follow the excellent speech made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan).
	Enormous interest has been expressed in this issue by Members on both sides of the House, not least thanks to the sterling work of the WASPI campaigners and the 154,000 people who signed their petition. As the Minister knows, there was standing room only during the Westminster Hall debate on the subject—it was the first Westminster Hall debate in which I took part as the shadow Minister—because the subject was of significance to all Members. We heard from many about the women who feel ill-prepared and short-changed by the failure to communicate and to deliver full transitional arrangements.
	Members have made some excellent points today, illustrating the stark reality that is faced by the many women who are trying to plan for their retirement in the context of these changes. Members in all parts of the House made passionate speeches on behalf of their constituents. I particularly thank my hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) and for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands). I also thank the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). There has been cross-party support for the WASPI women, and understanding of the difficulties that they face.
	I know that it is sometimes difficult for Conservative Members to speak out against the Government, and I give particular credit to those who have done so: the hon.
	Members for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries), for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), for Salisbury (John Glen), and for East Worthing and Shoreham. I know that it is difficult to make passionate speeches of that kind, and I thank those Members for their contributions.
	I would say this to the Tories—I am sorry, the Members opposite—[Hon. Members: “They are the Tories.”] That is what we call them locally. I am being nice when I call them the Members opposite. I am referring to the hon. Members for Gloucester (Richard Graham), for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans), and for Sherwood (Mark Spencer). This is not a question of racing back to the 1950s, and it is not about the 1995 changes. I say to Members, “Please read the motion.” We have offered options, and I have asked the Minister many times to give me costings for transitional arrangements. I urge Members to examine their consciences, to take account of the passionate debate that we have had, and to vote in favour of the motion.
	Let me briefly mention my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington North (Helen Jones) and for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds)—who is apparently a great feminist, although not as much of one as I am—[Interruption.] All right, I am sorry: perhaps he is. Let me also mention my hon. Friends the Members for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), for Burnley (Julie Cooper), for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), and for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes). Others who spoke in support of the motion were the hon. Members for Arfon (Hywel Williams), for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown). I am so relieved that I got all those constituencies right! That, not the Minister, kept me awake at night.
	Despite the views that were expressed by Members in all parts of the House, however, the Secretary of State has still refused to consider transitional protections for these women. Of course, hindsight is a wonderful thing, but it is crucial that we learn from the mistakes of the past and act accordingly. We know that the Minister’s predecessor had hoped that about a tenth of the direct savings of £3 billion would be put aside for transitional arrangements. The option that was eventually put forward as a concession—the 18-month cap—cost about a third of that. So we have a missing £2 billion, which has gone to the Treasury along with the rest of the savings. There are different options for transitional protection, and many Members on both sides of the House have suggested them today, but the Government have again failed to respond.

Peter Bottomley: The hon. Lady has referred to the £1.1 billion, which brought the extension down from two years to 18 months and, we are told, dealt with 81% of the women affected. So only 20% roughly are left at 18 months and the cost would be up £200 million. Can we put it to Government that that £200 million would have bought the loyalty of the rest of us this evening, but it won’t if they don’t?

Angela Rayner: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I hope that the Minister will answer that question. Just over a £1 billion was put in. According to my research, over half of that was for men.
	This is not the first time that Labour Members have asked the Government to consider these changes. As I have said, I would like to see and hear what the Government have done to look at transitional arrangements. We have had many debates in the House on the matter and, as Members have rightly said, this issue crosses party lines.
	People watching this debate today are incredibly proud of where I have come from. I was a home help and many women who pushed me into coming into the House of Commons will be watching the debate and are affected by the changes. When I stood for Parliament, I was asked, “What is your proudest moment?” I would say it is delivering equal pay and standing up for women’s rights. We have a choice today and we must do the right thing. Many Members have said that. I hope that the Minister has listened to the debate and that the Government do the right thing.

Justin Tomlinson: I am sorry that the limited time available prevents me from paying credit to all the Members who have spoken today. There has been real passion, and well thought out and measured responses on both sides of the House, drawing on the challenges we face, the concerns raised directly by residents and the work of the WASPI campaign, to which many Members are paying close attention.
	I pay credit to the hon. Members for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and for Burnley (Julie Cooper), who made the shortest speech today and gave some people some extra time. I understand the challenge that my hon. Friends the Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) have found themselves in. It is a difficult decision, particularly to go against your own Government. My hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans), for Salisbury (John Glen) and for Gloucester (Richard Graham) set out in great detail the wider issues and challenges we face. The key to that was eloquently put by my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood (Mark Spencer) and for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman).
	The Opposition have set out six options, which are very attractive. How simple life would be if we could simply say yes to all six, or any number of those six options. However, the challenge is that not a single one has been costed. Not a single one has suggested what we should not be doing. There is occasionally vague guesswork on what could pay for something. I was in two debates yesterday in Westminster Hall. The same vague ideas were expressed on how things could be paid for.

Barbara Keeley: Will the Minister give way?

Justin Tomlinson: Because of the lack of time, I will not give way.
	We have to look at the acceleration of state pension age equalisation, which is being introduced by this Government in order to achieve gender equality in state pension provision and to provide a sustainable system that can work for future generations. Often that is forgotten. It is always about now, not those future generations, our children and our children’s children, to whom all too often politicians have bequeathed yet more debt.
	In recent years, because of higher life expectancy and the difference in state pension ages, women on average have been receiving considerably more state pension over their lifetime than men. Not only was equalisation necessary to meet the UK’s obligations under EU law, but it provides the foundations for a fairer state pension that treats men and women equally.

Ian Blackford: Will the Minister give way?

Justin Tomlinson: I apologise to those who want to intervene. Those who debated with me in Westminster Hall know that I will always try to answer as many questions and interventions as possible. We simply do not have time today.
	Equalisation provides the foundations for a fairer state pension that treats men and women equally. That is something we can all agree on, on both sides of the House. The changes to state pension age were fully considered when the 2011 Act was passed. The Government listened to concerns at the time and adopted a concession worth over £1 billion, which benefited almost a quarter of a million women. Eighty-one per cent. of women affected will experience a delay of 12 months or less, compared with the previously legislated timetable.
	The Government are also committed to helping older workers stay in the labour market and have extended the right of flexible working to all employees to help achieve this. We are now seeing record numbers of women in employment—over 1 million more since 2010. With the introduction of the national living wage, over two thirds of those who will directly benefit will be women. That is something we can all be proud of. For those who are having difficulties working, the Government provide the same support for women as for men of the same age—in work, out of work, and disability benefits.
	I also appreciate the comments made about Government communication. My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) made great play of this. All Governments of all political colours have always wrestled with the question of the best way to communicate. The DWP did write directly to all the individuals affected by the 2011 Act using the address details recorded by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs at the time. More than 5 million letters were sent at the time. A service has also been available for individuals to request their state pension estimates, and this service has been providing individuals with their state pension age since 1995. We have taken these lessons on board with the auto-enrolment scheme, with which we are seeing very successful engagement.
	We must view these changes as part of the wider pension reforms. Those reaching state pension age from April of this year onwards will receive the new state pension, a reformed system that particularly benefits women who would have had poor outcomes under the current system. Over 3 million women stand to gain an average of £11 per week as a result of the changes by 2030.
	In conclusion, I remind the House of the reasons for the reform of our state pension system. To function effectively, it has to be fair, affordable and sustainable. These changes made to the state pension age under the Pensions Act 2011 make an important contribution to achieving these aims.

Question put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 265, Noes 289.

Question accordingly negatived.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I have now to announce the result of two deferred Divisions. In respect of the Question relating to road traffic, the Ayes were 299 and the Noes were 226, so the Question was agreed to. In respect of the Question relating to estimates, the Ayes were 301 and the Noes were 60, so the Question was agreed to.
	[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]

Police Funding, Crime and Community Safety

Andy Burnham: I beg to move,
	That this House recalls that the Chancellor announced in the Autumn Statement 2015 that there would be real-terms protection for police funding; notes that, based on the scale of cuts proposed, police budgets will fall by between nine and ten per cent over four years in real terms; further notes that the failure to provide real-terms protection for the police budget will lead to further cuts in police numbers in addition to the 18,357 police officers already lost since 2010; notes that the inclusion of cybercrime in crime statistics will show that crime has doubled; notes the heightened threat of a terrorist attack in the UK and the operational role of neighbourhood police in preventing such an attack; and calls on the Government to honour the Chancellor’s statement to the House and provide real-terms protection for the police budget.
	We called this debate for one simple reason: the public have not been told the truth about police funding or crime figures. With the second police and crime commissioner elections just weeks away, people need the facts so this evening we set the record straight.
	A matter of weeks ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer stood at the Dispatch Box and made this explicit promise to the police and to the public:
	“There will be real-terms protection for police funding. The police protect us, and we are going to protect the police.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 1373.]
	I am sure Conservative Members remember that because they waved their Order Papers. It could not have been clearer—“real-terms protection”. That was not an off-the-cuff remark or a slip of the tongue. It was the centrepiece announcement of the Chancellor’s autumn spending review statement, made with the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister at his side; it was the traditional rabbit out of the hat that we have come to expect on such occasions, designed to produce mass waving of Order Papers.
	There was once a time when, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement of that kind in that way to this House, it would have meant something more than just a grab for the next day’s headlines. People could trust it to be true, because it had been said by a Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Dispatch Box in the House of Commons, but it seems that we live in different times. Ministers these days, from the Prime Minister downwards, are decidedly less attentive than they used to be to the veracity of what they say at the Dispatch Box. Every Member of this House should worry, because in the end it goes to the heart of trust in this place and what we all do.
	Surely, of all public services, the police should be able to trust the word of Ministers of the Crown when commitments are given here. Would it not be a sign of disrespect to people who put themselves in harm’s way on our behalf day in, day out if the Chancellor was writing cheques that he knew he would not be able to cash? You would think so, wouldn’t you, but in today’s politics Ministers think they can say what they like and get away with it.
	This evening I will present to the House new analysis which shows that the Chancellor has broken his promise to the police and to the public. He has failed to provide real-terms protection for police budgets in 2016-17. In fact, he is about to cut those police budgets yet again, for the sixth year in a row. For the six years that he has been Chancellor and the six years that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) has been Home Secretary, we have had six years of cuts to the police. What a record! And to think that the Conservatives used to call themselves the party of law and order.
	The issue before the House tonight is this: are we prepared to let the Government think that they can get away with making promises to this House and then breaking them within days, or are we going to do something about it? Are we going to hold them to account and make them honour the promise they made to our local police forces?

David Hanson: I do not want to go too far back in history, but if my right hon. Friend looks at 3 February 2010 he will see that there were 18,000 more police officers under the Labour Government, but the increase in the budget for 2010-11 was 2.7%, and the Conservative party felt that it was not enough at the time.

Andy Burnham: I was just about to make that very point. The cuts that we are now facing come on top of the loss of 18,000 police officers over the previous Parliament, as my right hon. Friend has just said, and 12,000 of them were front-line officers. Thousands of police community support officers and civilian staff have lost their jobs. We have begun to see the break-up of neighbourhood policing, which was a great achievement of the previous Labour Government, bringing police out of their stations and cars and back into communities, restoring trust and bringing down crime. That is a record that Labour should be proud of.

Karen Buck: Is my right hon. Friend also aware that commitments were given that the sale of police stations and other buildings would help to ensure that there were additional police officers on the frontline? In my constituency we have lost St John’s Wood police station and Harrow Road police station, and I understand that Paddington Green police station has now been sold, yet our police numbers are still nearly 30% down on where they were in 2011.

Andy Burnham: The same story is repeated all over the country. I ask my hon. Friend to think about the cuts that have been made to other services alongside the police, such as those to councils, mental health services, social care, disability benefits, ambulance services and fire services. All those cuts pile extra pressure on our overstretched police forces. That is what we are seeing. The cuts now being planned come at a time when this country is facing multiple challenges on many fronts, and when the threat level has never been higher, so something has to give.

Stephen Doughty: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a stark contrast with the approach that the Welsh Labour Government are taking, with funding for hundreds of extra PCSOs in Wales making up for the shortfall they have seen as a result of cuts elsewhere?

Andy Burnham: I think that people will hear what my hon. Friend has said and make their own judgment. Who protects community safety? Who stands up for the police? When people come to vote this May, there is the evidence that when Labour is in government, when we run councils and when we have Labour police and crime commissioners, we protect front-line and neighbourhood policing and we improve community safety. My hon. Friend makes that point very well.
	The question we have to ask the Home Secretary today is this: how many more consecutive years of cuts can police forces take before public safety is seriously compromised? England and Wales already have far fewer police officers per head of population compared with international counterparts. If the ratio drops even lower, there are real fears that were a Paris-style attack to happen here, and, importantly, were it to happen outside London, there would simply not be the ability to surge enough police officers—specifically, fire arms officers and specialist units—on to the streets quickly enough to protect the public.

Kit Malthouse: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is giving this a bit of welly as part of his rehabilitation, but I am confused about two things. First, I have yet to hear him acknowledge that over the past seven years crime has continued to fall quite significantly. Secondly, I have yet to hear him refer to his own recommendation of 10% cuts in police funding, which he made not six months ago. Would he care to enlighten the House on both points?

Andy Burnham: I will come on to both points. I am doing fine, thanks. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can see that I will be standing up for police forces, even if he is not. I will come on to both points he raises, because I do not think that his Government are telling the correct story about what they are doing to the police. They are not providing real-terms protection; they are cutting the police. Ministers also stand at the Dispatch Box and say crime is falling; the Policing Minister said it just days ago—complacently. They fail to point out that the crime figures they quote do not include online crime, which is about to come into the crime statistics for the first time. In the last six years, crime has changed—it has moved online—but the relevant figures have not been counted, so I would not be so complacent if I were him.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned what was said at the autumn statement about what I was meant to have said. What I would say to him is that there is far too much spin coming from the Government Dispatch Box. He should look at what I actually said. I am about to come straight to that issue.
	I have talked about the specialist and firearms units we need to protect the public. However, neighbourhood policing is crucial, is it not, if we are to collect the intelligence to combat the terror threat. My worry is that if the Government proceed in this Parliament with year-on-year cuts, they will break up the neighbourhood teams. Let me take the House in detail through what I am saying and through the figures we are presenting.
	Analysis by the House of Commons Library of next year’s police grant settlement to individual forces shows that they will not be protected in real terms; in fact, they will not even be cash-protected. In 2015-16, the overall allocation to individual forces, excluding special payments to London, was £7,452 million. In 2016-17, it will be £7,421 million—a £30 million cash reduction, or £160 million in real terms.

Simon Hoare: A few moments ago, the right hon. Gentleman rightly said that the level of threat is severe, and we are all aware of that. May I make the same invitation to him that I made to his Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), in the previous policing debate? The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the importance of armed police officers. The Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that, in his vision of policing, even if those officers are armed, they will not be allowed to use their weapons. Will the shadow Home Secretary admit that that is a dereliction of duty? Will he take this opportunity, while he is speaking from the Dispatch Box, to clarify the Opposition’s position?

Andy Burnham: I can tell the hon. Gentleman now that the Leader of the Opposition said that that was simply not the case. There is no change whatever to long-established policy when it comes to the police keeping the public safe.

Steve McCabe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the cuts, the 4.6% police precept rise in the west midlands, which was apparently negotiated by the hon. Members for Solihull (Julian Knight) and for Dudley South (Mike Wood), amounts to nothing more than local people paying more money for less police?

Andy Burnham: The Government are cutting the police at national level, making local people in the west midlands—and in Greater Manchester too—pick up the bill, but people are getting less in terms of police on their streets. We know, do we not, that the Government are very good at making cuts in urban areas such as Greater Manchester and the west midlands and at taking money elsewhere. That is the reality: our constituents will be paying more for less. The Chancellor and the Home Secretary have broken their police promise to our constituents.

Dawn Butler: Talking about cuts, we have lost 108 police officers and 104 PCSOs in my constituency since 2010. The only increase we have seen has been in voluntary special constables—and that was 98. The Government are trying to police using volunteers, not police officers.

Andy Burnham: I will come to that as well. The Bill we will debate in a week or so is all about having a part-time police force to deal with the growing threat we face from online crime and fraud and from terror. That is simply not an answer to the challenges of the future, and I will come to that before I finish.

Catherine McKinnell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Andy Burnham: I will make a little more progress, and then I will give way to my hon. Friend.
	Let us just get the facts on the record: 36 of the 43 police forces in England and Wales have now received their grant allocations from the Home Office, and these show a cut in cash terms. How does that deliver the Chancellor’s pledge of real-terms protection? Worse, all police forces in England face real-terms cuts next year. If the same level of cuts is sustained over the spending review period, as we suspect it will be, that will equate to overall real-terms cuts in the police budget of between 9% and 10%.
	The House will recall that right up until the spending review—[Interruption.] I am coming to the point. Right up until the spending review, the police had been told to expect cuts of over 20%. Senior police officers say that they were still expecting cuts of over 20% the day before the spending review settlement. The hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) nods because he knows I am right about that. It was sustained pressure from Labour Members that forced a rethink from the Government.

Theresa May: rose—

Andy Burnham: I will give way to the Home Secretary in a moment.
	After the Paris attacks, the whole question of police funding had to be looked at in a new light. I wrote to the Home Secretary and said that while of course efficiencies could be made, anything over 5% cuts in real terms over the course of this Parliament would be dangerous. That was completely misrepresented by the Chancellor in his autumn statement, and I am pleased to correct the record today.

Theresa May: When my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), who was a distinguished deputy Mayor for policing here in London, referred to the 10% figure that the right hon. Gentleman had quoted, the right hon. Gentleman said that there was far too much spin from the Government side of the House. The figure actually came from a Labour party press release where he said:
	“Of course, savings can be found. The police say five to ten per cent over the Parliament is just about do-able”.
	He accepted 10%, so why is he now so worried about cuts in funding?

Andy Burnham: When that press release was issued I said that up to 5% would be do-able—[Interruption.] No, I have said this consistently, if the Home Secretary will just listen. I said that up to 5% cuts would be doable, and we stand by that; that up to 10% would be difficult; and that over 10% would be dangerous. She was threatening to cut the police by over 20%, so let us get the facts straight. She will recall that she asked Cobra to review police funding in the light of the Paris attacks. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey)—the shadow Policing Minister—and I also consulted the police in the light of the Paris attacks. We listened to what they had to say, as the Home Secretary will have done. They said that over 5% would be difficult, if not dangerous, and I put that in a letter to her before the autumn statement. Let us get this right so that the public are not misinformed and there is no spin from the Government Dispatch Box.
	In his desperation to play politics in the autumn statement, the Chancellor tried to misrepresent my position, but he outdid himself, because he misrepresented not just my position but the Government’s position. He dressed up a 10% cut as budget protection, and we now know that it is nothing of the sort. No doubt the Government’s defence will rest on the claim that they gave councils extra freedom to increase the police precept to make up the shortfall, but that does not hold water. For the Chancellor to give the guarantee in this House as he did, he would have needed firm agreements from local councils and PCCs that they would raise the extra cash locally, but he did not have those agreements—not even from Conservative PCCs. The Devon and Cornwall and Cambridgeshire forces will not be raising their precepts by the full amount recommended by the Government, and Hertfordshire is actually shown to have lowered its precept.
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	The Home Secretary says, “It’s their decision”, but let me tell her again: she promised real-terms protection for police budgets, and she is not delivering real-terms protection for police budgets. She has broken her promise to the police. I am afraid that she cannot just shrug that fact off. The Conservative PCC for Devon and Cornwall, Tony Hogg, says this about the implications of the spending review for his force:
	“While I completely welcome the Government’s changed position on Police funding, it remains a fact that central Government funding to Devon and Cornwall Police in 2020 is estimated to be 19% less in cash terms (real terms 32% less) than it was when I commenced office in November 2012.”
	A 32% cut in real terms, with 43 officers going next year and 28 police staff going too, is not on, and the Government cannot just shrug it off.
	The next claim that the Government will no doubt make is that authorities that have used the precept freedoms to the full will have been able to protect their budgets, but that is not true either. The Hampshire independent PCC, Simon Hayes, said:
	“The Medium Term Financial Strategy...shows an estimated budget shortfall of £6m by 2019/20 assuming 1.99% council tax precept increases from 2016/17 onwards.”
	He cannot make up the shortfall from his precept.
	Let me apply the same test to the Home Secretary’s police force and my own. Next year, Thames Valley police will see a real-terms cut in central Government funding of £5 million. The income raised by the full use of the precept does not cover that shortfall. Forces such as Thames Valley also have to contend with other cost burdens loaded on to them by the Chancellor, including the apprenticeship levy and the extra national insurance contributions. In the case of Thames Valley, those amount to more than £6 million. That is money out of front-line policing. What is the net effect of that in the Home Secretary’s police force? She should listen to this: 95 officers going next year, as well as 51 police community support officers and 161 staff. There we have it. The Home Secretary has broken her own police pledge to her constituents.
	Let us look at my force, Greater Manchester police. According to figures from the Library, central Government funding will be down by £8 million in real terms next year. The force has made full use of the freedoms from the precept, but that will not make up the shortfall. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) said, the force will be paying more for less. As the PCC for Greater Manchester, Tony Lloyd, puts it:
	“Contrary to the Chancellor’s rhetoric, this is a cuts budget.”

Catherine McKinnell: My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech and highlighting the differential impacts, as well as the impact across the board. I want to give the House the example of Northumbria police. Just 12% of its revenue comes from the council tax precept. That is far below the national average of 25%, and that hampers its ability to make up for the shortfall. Northumbria is the worst hit of all forces, with local residents paying more for less.

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The more deprived parts of the country have less ability to raise money from their council tax base, so they cannot make up for the Government’s cuts. I am sorry to tell her that the situation could be about to get even worse. The Guardian reported yesterday that the Home Secretary is about to bring forward a new police funding formula—after the mess that the Policing Minister made of the last one—which will divert funding away from urban forces towards rural ones.

Theresa May: indicated dissent.

Andy Burnham: The Home Secretary is shaking her head, and I am glad; I hope that she will tell me that that is not true. Recently, £300 million was miraculously made available for local government in England at the last minute, but—surprise, surprise—barely a penny went to any council represented by Labour. It all went to councils represented by the Conservatives. If the police funding formula did the same, it would add insult to injury and make a complete and utter mockery of the Government’s already dubious commitment to creating a northern powerhouse.

Tim Loughton: I have listened carefully to the shadow Home Secretary for 22 minutes, and his entire assessment of how the police are doing is based on the amount of money that the Government have given them. There has been absolutely no mention of smarter policing, better procurement or better use of technology. We heard yesterday in the Home Affairs Committee from a former Labour Member of this House and former Minister who is now the PCC for Merseyside. She has managed to halve the budget for her office compared with that of the former police authority, and all that money has gone into front-line policing. There is more to policing than the amount of money that the police receive from central office.

Andy Burnham: I could not have put it better myself. Vote Labour. Vote for a Labour PCC. Labour PCCs will work cleverly to protect front-line policing, and they will drive innovation and reform. Protect our police by voting Labour in May. I thank the hon. Gentleman for making my point better than I could have done.

Richard Fuller: On the point about additional funding for policing to plug some of the gaps that the right hon. Gentleman has talked about, as he knows, the reductions are over five years, during which time some PCCs may take control of their fire authorities. Does he believe that it would be right or wrong for PCCs to use fire budgets to plug perceived gaps in their police budgets?

Andy Burnham: I think it would be wrong, and I am very worried about the proposal to put fire under the control of the PCCs, because fire will be the poor relation. Already, thousands of firefighters, fire pumps and fire stations are at risk from the local government settlement. I put it to the hon. Gentleman and all Conservative Members that considering the cuts to the police, and to the fire service as well, we must all ask ourselves the question: is there adequate emergency cover in all parts of the country? I believe we are getting to the point at which some people will say that that is no longer the case. We need to look at those two things together. Putting two underfunded services together will not necessarily create a financially viable or safe service.
	I want to move on to the crime figures, because I am conscious of the time. The Government’s alibi for their police cuts so far has been that it is okay to cut the police because crime is falling. That is basically the argument made by the hon. Member for North West Hampshire, who formerly had responsibility for policing in London— but is it true? The latest recorded crime statistics in January showed large increases in violent crime, knife crime, hate crime and sexual offences.
	As ever, Ministers will say, “Look at the British crime survey,” but as I have said, crime has changed: it has migrated online. We might see a downward trend in the traditional volume crimes such as burglary and theft in the British crime survey, but when we ask the British public whether they have been the victim of online crime, they will probably say, “Yes, I have been.” If those figures are not included in the British crime survey, it is no wonder that we do not have an accurate picture of crime.

Kit Malthouse: rose—

Andy Burnham: I will give way one final time.

Kit Malthouse: I recognise the issue that the right hon. Gentleman raises, but will he accept that we cannot patrol to prevent online crime? The solution to online crime is not throwing bodies at it but about throwing technology at it, which can be done either relatively cheaply or much more efficiently.

Andy Burnham: What we should not do is to throw volunteers at it, which is the Home Secretary’s idea. [Interruption.] I will come on to explain that. This is about both technology and people. We need sophisticated teams to deal with it. It is fair to say that most police forces do not have such a capability at the moment, and they will not get that capability by having their numbers and their budgets cut. We need a sophisticated response to online crime.

Debbie Abrahams: The hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) is trying to suggest that there is no link between crime and the reduction in support and funding for police services. In Greater Manchester, £8.5 million and 1,600 staff have been cut, and we know that there has been an increase in crime. In my constituency, the number of burglaries has doubled year on year. Is that not the effect of what the Government are doing?

Andy Burnham: That is directly the effect of what the Government have done, compared with what they inherited. How on earth can that police force now develop the capability to deal with the threats we will face in the future? The argument that crime is falling so we can cut the police will not work any more. Ministers are going to have to get a new script. It is not safe to cut the police, because crime is becoming more complex.

Theresa May: I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for giving way to me a second time. He is making an argument about the importance of accuracy in reporting figures. May I therefore ask him why, in relation to a Labour party press release on crime statistics issued in January, under the heading “crime up 6 per cent, the biggest increase”, the UK Statistics Authority wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) to say that
	“by focusing on police recorded crime without appropriate caveats, and omitting evidence from the more complete and reliable source (for most violent crimes) of the Crime Survey for England and Wales, it may have given, in parts, a misleading impression”?
	Will the right hon. Gentleman now apologise?

Andy Burnham: No, I will not, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington said, the figures were accurately reported. The challenge today is for the Home Secretary to explain her claim that crime is falling, because I am afraid the recorded crime figures do not show that, and some experts say that the British crime survey is about to show that crime has in fact doubled. That is the issue that she has to explain, and she will have to work hard to do so.
	Tackling online crime is one of the biggest challenges we face, but as I have said, forces do not have the capability. The question is, how are they going to do that with these further cuts? To be fair, the Home Secretary has floated one idea, which I have just mentioned. She told the BBC website in January that she was planning to recruit a new army of volunteers to help solve cybercrimes. She said that
	“volunteers who specialise in accountancy or computing”,
	as well as IT professionals,
	“could work alongside police officers to investigate cyber or financial crime”.
	I ask in all honesty, is that really the best the Government can come up with to crack the complex crime challenges of the future—Theresa’s temps, a Dad’s Army of retired accountants to take on and defeat the sophisticated international organised crime and fraud networks?
	The week after next, we will debate the Home Secretary’s Bill, which will propose that powers be given to volunteers without their becoming special constables. Is that really the answer—a part-time police force? It does not equate to a vision for policing in England and Wales that is up to the challenges of the future. A part-time police force is no answer to the growing threats we face from cybercrime and terrorism. When it is the only answer that the Government can come up with, it is a sure sign that their cuts have gone way too far.

Steve Rotheram: It was suggested by the former deputy Mayor that these things can be done by sophisticated algorithms that can filter out such crimes. Actually, the victims of such crimes still feel that they need a police officer to come round and speak to them. That is the problem, especially when 1,000 front-line police officers in Merseyside are being cut.

Andy Burnham: We have seen this cost cutting and privatisation elsewhere, haven’t we? Take NHS 111, which was going to solve everything because of the algorithms that the call handlers would use. Has the service to the public been better than under NHS Direct? In no way. My hon. Friend has got it absolutely right. The Government suggest that it can all be done on the cheap, but people know it cannot.
	In conclusion, the official line from the Government has been, “We’re protecting the police and crime is falling,” but that claim is something that should be added to the growing fraud statistics. The truth is the opposite: the police are being cut while crime is rising. They are cutting the fire service and the Border Force even more deeply—Tory cuts that are putting people’s safety at risk. That is the message that we will take into the PCC elections. Our police do a difficult job in a dangerous world. They deserve our thanks and respect, particularly those of the Government of the day. If promises are made to them, they should be kept. As we have shown, Labour is prepared to stand up for the police and protect community safety. That is what we are asking the House to do tonight by making this arrogant Government honour their commitment to the police. Real-terms protection should mean just that. What better way is there for Members on both sides of the House to show their appreciation for their local police forces than by voting for the Opposition motion tonight?

Theresa May: Let me start by paying tribute to the police, the fire and rescue services and all those who attended the incident at Didcot power station yesterday. In doing so, they showed the courage and professionalism that police officers and firefighters show day in and day out.
	The right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) called for a debate on police funding, crime and community safety. I am delighted that he did so and I will set out the steps the Government are taking to continue cutting crime, keep people safe from terrorism and reform our police and emergency services in a moment, but before I do, I would like to address the motion before us. He said that he called this debate to expose “Tory lies”, but the truth is that the motion contains nothing but inaccuracies and misleading statements. I will address each in turn.
	The right hon. Gentleman says in the motion that
	“police budgets will fall by between nine and ten per cent over four years in real terms”.
	That is, frankly, not true. As the Chancellor set out in the autumn statement, overall police spending will increase from nearly £11.4 billion this year to £12.3 billion at the end of the spending review period—an increase of just under 8% or £900 million in cash terms. There will be protection in real terms over the course of this Parliament if police and crime commissioners maximise their precept. The funding for individual PCC budgets, which includes funding from central Government and local taxpayers through the precept, will be protected in cash terms.
	We will provide substantial additional investment over the period in transformation funding to improve police capabilities to deal with modern threats such as terrorist firearms attacks, cybercrime and other emerging threats.
	When the right hon. Gentleman calls on the Government to provide real-terms protection for the policing budget, I can happily tell Members that we have done just that. That is in stark contrast to the right hon. Gentleman himself. Earlier, I referred to a Labour party press release, but addressing the Labour party conference last year the shadow Home Secretary made it clear that he would support cutting the police by
	“5 per cent to 10 per cent over the Parliament”.
	It is one thing to criticise the Government for imaginary spending cuts, but it is quite another to do so after arguing for significant spending reductions.
	The right hon. Gentleman also argues that police forces might make further reductions to the number of police officers and staff. Notwithstanding the point that police budgets have been protected for the spending review period, decisions on the size and composition of a police force’s workforce are for individual chief officers working closely with their police and crime commissioners. The lesson of the past five years is that what matters is how officers are deployed, not how many of them there are.

Diana R. Johnson: I have heard the Home Secretary comment that she is not particularly concerned about the numbers, but I wonder whether she is concerned about the fact that Humberside police force has the lowest level of police officers since the 1970s. Does that not concern her at all?

Theresa May: The point that I am making is very simple and I am happy to repeat it to the hon. Lady. The Labour party consistently looks at the amount of money that is spent and at the number of police officers, but what we need to look at is how money is being spent and how the officers are being deployed. It is not just me who is saying that. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has made it clear that there is no simple link between officer numbers and crime levels, between numbers and the visibility of police in the community or between numbers and the quality of service provided.

Andy Burnham: I am listening carefully to what the Home Secretary is saying and she has repeated the claim that she is protecting the police in real terms. Is she therefore denying the figures from the House of Commons Library that show 36 out of 43 police forces in England and Wales receiving cash cuts in their allocation from the Home Office for 2016-17?

Theresa May: When the right hon. Gentleman looks at figures for overall police spending he needs to look at figures for overall police spending, because they include the money being spent. He was very careful. He said when he looked at his figures that he was not looking, for example, at the extra grants for London through the capital city grant. He was not looking at the money being spent on the emergency services mobile scheme that we are introducing to replace Airwave. He needs to look more carefully at the figures that he is citing.

Richard Fuller: The Home Secretary makes a very good point; this is not just about the total money but about how money is spent. The problems on the Labour side also come down to a local level, not just a national level. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that although we understand the problems with financing policing in Bedfordshire, it undermines the case when the PCC for Bedfordshire has one of the highest proportions of commissioned police officers in staff roles rather than on the frontline and when he does not spend the budget allocated to him, for example, on counter-terrorism?

Theresa May: I agree with my hon. Friend, and it is very striking when we look at the figures for Bedfordshire how many officers are not on the frontline but in the back office. That is one of the things that most police forces have changed over the years, but there is clearly more scope for that to take place in Bedfordshire. Under a different police and crime commissioner—a Conservative police and crime commissioner—I am sure that it would.

Julian Knight: I want to pick up on that point about the financial management of Labour police and crime commissioners. In the West Midlands, for instance, the Labour PCC, David Jamieson, has reported £100 million in reserves, yet he chose before the spending review to fire huge swathes of vital PCSOs in a highly politicised move and then had to reverse the decision after the spending review. The message is, “If you want to play politics with the police, vote Labour.”

Theresa May: I have to say that I agree with my hon. Friend. If we look at the figures, we see that the cash change in resource reserves since March 2014 in the West Midlands is £27 million. The choice has been made to put that money in reserve—into the bank balance—rather than into officers on the frontline.

Andy Burnham: I thank the Home Secretary for giving way one more time, because this is an important debate and people need the truth. They will have heard that she did not answer my last question about Home Office cash cuts to 36 police forces, so let me ask another question. She loves to read out what I said—5%, 10%—but I have already gone through what I said and the letter I wrote to her. Let us get the facts straight. Why did David Jamieson put forward those plans? It was because until the day before the spending review, the Home Secretary was telling the police that they could expect 25% cuts. That is what she was telling them; that is what they were planning for. What happened to make her change her mind the day before the spending review, and back down on the 25% cuts that she was planning?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to make an argument where there is none, because he knows full well the processes of determining the comprehensive spending review, and the discussions that take place between Departments and the Treasury that result in the final figures that the Chancellor announces. In truth, the Labour party decided what its line was going to be on police funding, and when the Chancellor stood up and protected police budgets, instead of sensibly changing that line, it decided to carry on with it anyway because one should never let the facts get in the way of an argument.
	The right hon. Gentleman argues that the inclusion of cybercrime in the crime statistics will show that crime has doubled, but the uncomfortable truth for the Opposition is that crime has fallen by more than a quarter since 2010, according to the independent crime survey for England and Wales. That is one of the most authoritative surveys of victims of crime in the world. It is administered by the independent Office for National Statistics, which captures the experience of more than 30,000 households. The survey dates back to the 1980s and shows that crime is at historic lows. People in this country are as safe as they have ever been.
	The ONS has been clear: its preliminary estimate on fraud and cybercrime does not mean that crime is rising, and certainly not that it has doubled. In fact, it confirms what we have long known, which is that such crimes have for too long gone unreported and unrecorded. That is why the Government welcome the work of the ONS to capture those crimes.
	The right hon. Gentleman notes the heightened threat of a terrorist attack and the important role of the police in preventing such attacks, and I will go on to speak about that.

Naseem Shah: The Chancellor is not present, but will the right hon. Lady confirm that his pledge to protect the police relies on an assumed increase of £369 million in local taxes?

Theresa May: I described accurately in my speech what was said about real-terms figures and maximising the precept, and that in cash terms there will be virtually a £900 million increase in funding for police budgets.

Jake Berry: Is my right hon. Friend surprised, as I am, that on the one hand Labour Members seem to be arguing that the Chancellor protected funding because of their campaign, and on the other hand that funding is going down?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—they cannot have it all ways, and that is exactly what the shadow Home Secretary is trying to argue. He is saying, “Isn’t it great? It is all because of us that police funding is protected—ooh, whoops, no, we think it’s going down.” He really needs to get his own lines straight before he stands up and speaks in this Chamber.

Clive Efford: rose—

Theresa May: I want to speak about terrorism so I hope the hon. Gentleman will excuse me. The threat from terrorism is real and growing. As I said when I was in Washington last week, the threat from Daesh requires us to act with greater urgency and joint resolve, both at home and internationally, more than ever before. An effective counter-terrorism response relies on the police and agencies working together with the right tools, capabilities and powers. That is precisely why the Government took the decision to protect overall police spending in real terms last autumn, why they have always supported neighbourhood policing as part of that joint effort, and why they protected counter-terrorism policing budgets and increased funding for the security and intelligence agencies. We are introducing vital legislation to ensure that the police and agencies continue to investigate crime and protect our national security in the digital age.

Stephen Doughty: I have spoken to the Home Secretary previously about this, and the Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice was good enough to meet me recently to discuss the specific concerns facing Cardiff— as a capital city—and its neighbouring regions, particularly when dealing with the threat from terrorism. Will she look closely and generously at the specific needs facing Cardiff when she considers the resources that she is speaking about?

Theresa May: There are two aspects to this. There is the request that Cardiff has made for capital city grant, in the same way that London receives capital city grant. This has been looked at very carefully on a number of occasions. In overall policing terms, London has specific responsibilities and issues to address that are not reflected in Cardiff as a capital city. Separately, there is the whole question of counter-terrorism policing. The counter-terrorism policing budget is separate. We have been able to not just protect it but increase it for such issues as the provision of firearms officers. I recognise the points the hon. Gentleman has made to me and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice about ensuring that proper counter-terrorism resource is available in the Cardiff area for policing.

Dawn Butler: I agree with the Home Secretary about the fight to combat terrorism. Safer neighbourhood teams have a pivotal role. In my constituency, the most diverse in the UK, we have lost 104 PCSOs. They cannot be replaced by volunteers. Does that concern the Home Secretary as much as it concerns me?

Theresa May: I will make two points to the hon. Lady. First, the percentage of officers in front-line duties has actually increased, I think from 89% to 92%, under this Government. Secondly, if we compare the actions of Labour police and crime commissioners with Conservative police and crime commissioners, Conservative PCCs have largely protected their local police officers, whereas Labour PCCs have been cutting them more significantly. I therefore suggest she looks at that.

Clive Efford: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Theresa May: I am going to make some more progress, because we have limited time for this debate.
	I cannot agree with many of the contentions put forward in today’s motion, but I welcome the opportunity to set out the reforms that the Government have pursued since 2010 to improve policing, deliver better value for money for taxpayers, and better protect people and communities from crime. When we came to power in 2010, it was not only the country’s finances that the Labour party had left in a mess. The financial crisis made public spending cuts across the board necessary. We had just been through the worst financial crisis since the second world war and had the biggest budget deficit in our peacetime history—bigger than that in Portugal and bigger, even, than the one in Greece.
	Even without the pressing financial imperative, however, the problems in policing were glaring. Police forces were bloated with bureaucracy. Officers’ productivity was held back by targets and red tape. Local policing priorities were dictated from Whitehall. Police pay and conditions were hopelessly out of date, and, while police forces were supposedly held to account by police authorities, in reality only 7% of the public knew that those unelected committees even existed.
	We brought in a radical programme of police reform to transform inadequate structures and institutions, bringing much-needed changes to open up the workforce, reform pay and conditions, overhaul outdated systems and technology, and make policing properly accountable. We cut red tape and freed up about 4.5 million hours of police time, the equivalent of 2,100 full-time police officers. We took steps to root out the waste and inefficiency that existed in police procurement and IT. We set up the College of Policing to improve police standards and training. We established the National Crime Agency to co-ordinate the response to serious and organised crime.
	In 2011, we introduced police and crime commissioners to bring real local accountability to policing in a way that was never possible under invisible and faceless police authorities. In just a few months’ time, the public will have the opportunity to hold policing in their area to account in the strongest way possible—at the ballot box. For those pioneering PCCs standing for re-election, they will be defending their record and will be judged on their record over the last three-and-a-half years. Those standing for the first time will be judged on their ideas to improve policing in their areas. All will have a direct, democratic mandate to hold their local police force to account, to cut crime and to keep people safe.
	When I introduced my programme of reform, those on the Opposition Benches claimed it would lead to a perfect storm of more crime, lower confidence and less visible policing. However, thanks to the hard work of police officers and police staff, and thanks to the leadership of chief constables and police and crime commissioners up and down the country, none of those predictions has come true. As I said earlier, crime is down by more than a quarter since 2010, according to the independent Crime Survey for England and Wales. Labour Members can shake their heads, but this Government have done more than any other to ensure that crime statistics are accurate and can be trusted by the public. In 2012, I transferred responsibility for crime statistics from the Home Office to the Office for National Statistics to ensure that they are properly independent. In 2013, I commissioned Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to inspect crime recording practices in all forces in England and Wales. In 2014, it published a report on each force, as well as an overview of its findings. As a result of its scrutiny, we are already seeing more accurate crime recording.
	I have made previously hidden and under-reported crimes a priority, and I hope Members of all parties will welcome the fact that today we see more victims of sexual and violent offences having the confidence to come forward and report those crimes. While crime has fallen, public confidence has been maintained and the proportion of police officers on the front line has increased.

Debbie Abrahams: rose—

Neil Coyle: rose—

Theresa May: I give way to the hon. Lady.

Debbie Abrahams: Unfortunately, my constituents are not at all happy. Burglary has increased by 100% over the last year, according to police recorded crime figures. What is the Home Secretary doing to monitor the potential increase in vigilantism?

Theresa May: I am sorry, but I thought the hon. Lady said “invigilantism”. It is very clear—HMIC is very clear about it—that the police have the resources they need to do the job they need to keep people safe and secure. They are doing that on a day-to-day basis across the country. Public perceptions of crime are improving nationally and locally. Fewer people are worried about burglary, and more people believe the criminal justice system is effective.

Neil Coyle: rose—

Theresa May: I am sorry, but I am conscious that there is only limited time for this debate, and I am coming to the end of my remarks.
	As I said earlier, the proportion of officers on the front line has increased from 89% to 92% since March 2010. That has been achieved at the same time as we have set about the urgent task of repairing the country’s finances, reducing the deficit and ensuring the long-term health of our economy. That task is not yet finished. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made clear in the autumn statement, over the course of the last Parliament, we made huge progress in rescuing the economy. Now we must rebuild it and we must protect our economic security in an uncertain world. We must also ensure that we have the resources to respond to the growing and emerging threats that we face. We have done that by protecting police funding in real terms, once the local precept is taken into account.
	This is not the first time that the right hon. Member for Leigh and his party have made tall claims about crime and public safety. In 2011, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) argued in this House that our reforms would lead to “a perfect storm” of higher crime, lower confidence and less visible policing. None of those predictions came true.
	In 2012, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said that the model of community policing was being denigrated by the Government. In fact, we have always supported a model of community policing, and we put PCCs in place to ensure that local priorities were taken into account. As I have just indicated, Conservative PCCs are doing a better job in that area than Labour PCCs are.
	In 2013, the Labour party’s review of policing, led by Lord Stevens, warned of
	“a danger of the police being forced to retreat to a discredited model of reactive policing”.
	As I have said, however, a greater proportion of officers are now on the front line. In 2014, the then Leader of the Opposition claimed that abolishing direct democracy through police and crime commissioners was a “sensible” saving. Yet in three months’ time, the Labour Party will stand candidates in elections for every single police force area in the country.
	In 2015, the Labour crime and justice manifesto suggested that
	“a further 30,000 police officers could be lost after the election under the Conservatives”.
	HMIC has been clear, however, that every force has the resources it needs to deliver effective policing and to continue cutting crime.

Andy Burnham: rose—

Theresa May: Given that it is the right hon. Gentleman, I will give way one last time, but I am virtually at the end.

Andy Burnham: I am very grateful to the Home Secretary. She has just said something that goes to the heart of our debate today. She said that the Government had protected police budgets in real terms, once the police precept is taken into account—she said something along those lines. Will she accept that that caveat was not in the Chancellor’s autumn statement?

Theresa May: No. I am sorry, but we have been through this, and I am not going to go over it again for the right hon. Gentleman.
	At every release of the independent Crime Survey for England and Wales, the Labour party has ignored the most authoritative measure for crime in this country, because it does not show what it wants it to show. As I said earlier, Labour decided what its campaign would be six years ago, and they have doggedly stuck to it ever since. They operate on the basis that if you say something enough times, people will believe it, regardless of the facts—[Interruption.] They ignore the evidence that points to lower crime, safer communities and police reform that is working. [Interruption.]

Neil Coyle: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Members must allow the Home Secretary to conclude her speech.

Theresa May: The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) may well be able to catch the eye of the Chair if he wishes to speak later.
	There is an important debate to be had on policing in this country. It is a debate on how best to keep individuals, communities and businesses safe from crime, how best to ensure that the police can adapt to changing crime and emerging threats, and how best to drive better collaboration, joint working and local accountability in law enforcement and wider public services. I urge the shadow Home Secretary to focus on those issues, rather than repeating the same discredited claims that his predecessors repeated throughout the last Parliament. Keeping communities safe from crime, and ensuring that the police can adapt to that changing crime and those emerging threats, are what the public care about and what this Government will deliver.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. It will be obvious to the House that a great many Members wish to speak, and we have only an hour left. After the spokesman for the Scottish National party has made his contribution, there will be a three-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Richard Arkless: I assure Members that I have no intention of taking up any more time than is absolutely necessary.
	Let me begin by echoing the words of the Home Secretary, and making it clear that my hon. Friends and I are forever thankful for the tireless work that our police services do on our behalf to keep our streets safe. They are indeed indispensable. Since my election, I have been hugely impressed by the officers whom I have met. They are all completely dedicated to protecting the public, which is how it should be. I think we need to make it clear in this debate that all police staff on both sides of the border have our full and unequivocal support as they go about their very important duties.
	The motion is predicated on the Chancellor’s announcement in the autumn statement that police budgets in England and Wales would be fully protected. I well remember the waving of Order Papers and the near-hysteria of Conservative Members, who presumably thought that full protection was the right course of action; it certainly seemed to be their view. The occasion followed a Back-Bench police debate in which I led for the SNP. During that debate, Labour called for cuts to be restricted to 10%—or 5%; it depends on whom we believe today. The Government made no commitment that day, although, somewhat predictably, they outflanked the Labour party in the autumn statement.
	As always with this Government, the devil may well be in the detail. We now learn—from a response to a written question, no less—that this much-celebrated protection may not extend to the transport, defence and nuclear police. I remember the Chancellor’s words clearly, and if the response to the written question is correct—and there seems to be some debate about that today—his statement could be described as disingenuous. Given that policing is devolved, it is not for me, or the SNP, to argue the points that are made in the motion. I merely point out that I witnessed the Chancellor’s assurances, and that in any area of policy, devolved or not, it is imperative that the public can rely on clear statements in this place.
	The motion does not stipulate Scotland specifically, which is a pleasant surprise. Perhaps the Labour party is learning that bashing Scotland and her democratically elected Government does its electoral chances in Scotland no good whatsoever. My party will therefore abstain in the vote, and will leave the debate to the MPs from England and Wales. Accordingly, my comments will not take up too much time. I do not wish to restrict the right of England and Wales Members to a say.

John Stevenson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when it comes to policing, it is not just a question of money but a question of structure? Will he acknowledge that the SNP Government made a mistake in reducing their police to a single force?

Richard Arkless: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the proposal was in the SNP manifesto, the Conservative manifesto, and the Labour manifesto at the last Scottish parliamentary election. It seems a bit rich to claim after the event that making the move was the wrong thing to do, given that all the parties were advocating such a move.
	I am a Member of this House and my party is the third party in it. In that context, it is worth while briefly highlighting the approach that Scotland has taken to budget police cuts. I express my pride that the Scottish Government have done what is necessary to protect a commitment for 1,000 additional officers since 2007. That commitment has been delivered in full. We have delivered savings and maintained an impressive reduction in crime figures. We did it all in the face of the harsh austerity agenda against us. Most importantly, we kept officers on the streets, protecting communities effectively. Sure there have been challenges but all organisational upheaval of that extent will have those teething problems.
	Since 2007 in Scotland, we have increased the number of officers by 6.3%, while in England and Wales in the same period the number has dropped by 10.8%. It is dangerous to risk security in that way, yet the Government insist on pursuing the line that they are making the UK safer. How you spend what you have and your spending priorities are often as important as the underlying spend. It is about time that the rest of the UK caught up with the standards set by the Scottish Government in achieving the lowest crime rate in four decades. We have driven savings and upheld the priority of combating new and more sophisticated forms of crime, including cybercrime, financial crime and terrorism. Having said that, I believe it is fundamentally unfair that the Scottish Police Authority has yet to be awarded the VAT status that every other police force in the UK enjoys. That alone would be enough to ease the burden on the force to the tune of £23 million.

Jake Berry: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would confirm that the Scottish Government were advised, before they made the changes to the Scottish policing structure, that they would lose their special status on VAT. If so, why did they still proceed to make the change?

Richard Arkless: I can confirm that that was the case, but we made our protestations abundantly clear at that time, and we also made it clear that we would campaign on the issue. There is an old saying: if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, the chances are it is a duck. That looks unfair, it feels unfair and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is unfair. Surely that cannot be right.

Mr Speaker: I discern that the hon. Gentleman has finished his speech. We are very obliged to him.

Kit Malthouse: I am pleased to see your happy countenance, Mr Speaker, for I rise depressed. I thought coming to this place that I would avoid tedious arguments about inputs and instead participate in a debate about results, policy and methods. In 2008, when I became deputy mayor for policing in London, I inherited a police force that had lost its way but was awash with cash. At that time in the capital, significant crime types were rising, not least teenage murder. During my four years, I helped, cajoled, bullied and persuaded the police to refocus at the same time as cutting significant amounts of money from the police budget. During that entire period crime fell, particularly some important crime types such as teenage murder. In my first year, there were 29. In my final year there were eight. It convinced me there and then that there is little connection between resource and output and results in policing. It is much more about focus.
	What is depressing about the argument that the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) has made today is that it fundamentally misunderstands the nature of modern policing and modern crime. Government and many police and crime commissioners throughout the country are trying to refocus the police on some of the challenges that they face.

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the Met he inherited in 2008. I would not argue that it was perfect, but does he accept that the Metropolitan police of 2008 were a universe away from the Metropolitan police of 1997, who failed properly to investigate the murder of Stephen Lawrence?

Kit Malthouse: I will accept that there have been significant changes in the Metropolitan police—that is absolutely right—but I think it is universally accepted that, when we got into office in 2008, under the then commissioner the force had lost focus. The point I am making is that it was not delivering while at the same time it was receiving significant budget increases. It was literally awash with cash. That position had to be corrected. That has to happen across the whole country.
	In my entire time in the policing community, I never came across a police force that had adopted what are in many ways the four pillars needed for modern policing. The first of them is investment in intelligence. About 80% of the time the police know just about where, when and by whom a crime is going to be committed, yet they never invest as much as they should in intelligence. Technology is changing the face of crime fighting. Automatic number plate recognition, data analysis, facial recognition, advanced forensics: no police force in the UK invests enough in them.
	I have yet to find a police force that measures the efficiency of investigation. Murder in London fell from a high of 211 back in 2005 to just 101 in my final year. Should we still be investing the same number of police officers in murder? Of course not. There has to be some kind of peace dividend and efficiency saving.
	There is also innovation. If police forces are really going to grasp the challenge of the future, they have to invest in innovation. There is not a single police force in the country that has an innovation officer spreading new methods and techniques across the force.
	Finally, I want to say a word on cybercrime. The right hon. Member for Leigh made much of that. It is a prime example of where technology is going to solve the problem. When I was a kid, anyone could open my grandad’s Mk2 Escort by thumping the door with their thigh. Now car crime is negligible in police terms because of changes in technology. Cars got better. The truth is that banks and financial services organisations invest in technology to prevent and detect crime, and the police have to do the same. One programmer—one smart programme—will solve more cybercrime than 1,000 police officers ever could; that is what I call efficiency.

Keith Vaz: Mr Speaker, you are known as the Back Bencher’s champion, and I hope the shadow Home Secretary will not feel I am criticising him too much, but I think that for him to have spent 35 minutes—over a quarter of the entire allocated time for this debate—on his speech is a discourtesy to Members on both sides who have come here to talk about this important issue.
	I want just to say the following. My concern, and that of the Home Affairs Committee, is not so much about the settlement, because we said in our last report, published on 11 December, that the Chancellor was right to have done what he did, but that is only half the story. Our concern is over the funding formula. Of course the Policing Minister was right to look again at the formula and re-evaluate it, and we have noted the fact that that whole process ended in a shambles because of the Home Office’s failure to properly calculate the data, and it took an official in Devon and Cornwall to assess that something had gone wrong.
	We published our report on 11 December. The Government’s response to this very important issue is now 13 days late. Chief constables and police and crime commissioners up and down the country have been waiting for this response, and for the consultation to begin. The fact is that unless we have the new formula, even the decisions made on the settlement will not give certainty to the various police forces in this country.
	We had a letter from the Policing Minister in the middle of the last debate in which he said he was going to respond very swiftly, but there is a debate on Tuesday about the Committee’s report, by which time I hope we will have begun the consultation. Yesterday in our deliberations, five PCCs as well as Lord Wasserman gave evidence on PCCs, and they all said that none of them had been contacted by the Home Office about this critical issue. This has been mirrored in the emails we have received at the Committee office from other chief constables.
	I ask the Home Secretary and the Policing Minister to ensure that when the Minister comes to wind up—I assume another half hour of this debate will be taken up with wind-ups—he should please tell us when the consultation process will begin. I hope he will use the examples we have given in our report so that there is an independent element to the consultation process. If that happens, we will get a formula that can be accepted by all the police forces in this country, and a formula that can remain in place for many years to come.

Jake Berry: Robert Peel’s vision for the police was that
	“the police are the public and the public are the police”.
	That could not be embodied any better than in the enormous contribution made by special constables to police forces across the country. The latest statistics show that 18,000 special constables were working alongside police officers and saving an estimated £75 million last year in man hours. It is impossible for anyone to speak in this debate without acknowledging the huge challenges that police forces have faced in relation to their budgets. In that environment, we are clearly going to place increasing reliance on special constables. They are volunteers who come from all walks of life and all backgrounds. If we were having a conversation with a special constable on the street, we probably could not tell him from any other officer. He is a warranted officer, he has had the same training and he stands shoulder to shoulder with other officers. Special constables are invaluable and they give up their free time to keep us safe on our streets.
	With that in mind, I wanted to discuss the case of Andrew Blades, a constituent who was a special constable in Lancashire. He worked as a special for six years, giving more than 2,500 hours to the people in Rossendale, Darwen, Burnley and beyond in east Lancashire, keeping us safe. He moved an unmarked police car across a road to block the way of an oncoming unlicensed, un-MOTed, uninsured scrambler motorbike that had been terrorising the neighbourhood. We should be lauding him as a hero, because not only did he stop a crime being committed, but he protected a fellow officer. Unfortunately, however, his payment for that—for taking those brave, split-second decisions on our behalf as a volunteer—was to be prosecuted for dangerous driving, a case he admitted and for which he has been sentenced to a year’s ban.
	The case was well covered in the newspapers and I wish to read out a comment from someone in an online newspaper. This person had probably come home from work and was looking at the online newspapers, and they said:
	“It really isn’t often I feel outrage but tonight reading this story has left me outraged and speechless”.
	Guess what, I agree with him and so do 1,500 readers of the newspaper. When the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box, I would be grateful if he would take the opportunity to inform the House of what further steps he will take to protect special constables, particularly bearing in mind the unanimous resolution of the Police Federation to extend its protection to special constables? I also ask him to see what the Government can do about paying their Police Federation subs for them.

Naseem Shah: Let me start by paying tribute to my local police, particularly Inspector Tom Horner. He works tirelessly, along with his team, to keep my community and my constituents safe, as does the regional police force. West Yorkshire’s force has lost a considerable amount of funding and more than 20% of its officers, and it is now likely to be asked to find savings, despite having a “protected budget”.
	Bradford is not like the leafy suburbs of some southern counties where funding has increased over the past six years. We deal with complex issues that create vulnerability. In the past few weeks, we saw the conviction of 12 people from a grooming gang in Keighley, and such cases affect the wider budget of a local police force. In our area, we have to deal with terrorism and with women who have fled with their children to Syria.
	What I want from the Home Secretary today is an explanation of how she and the Chancellor will ensure that he will take all these complexities into account, including terrorism, alcohol, domestic violence and mental health issues. On the one hand, cuts mean austerity, which has an impact on people’s lives within their homes, while on the other there is an increase in poverty and crime: there is a correlation. We cannot deny that.
	I would really like to understand how this Government are going to ensure that they take into account places like my constituency, where the issues are complex: we need extra funding to tackle terrorism and we have extra vulnerabilities. We are also looking at integration, as just a few weeks ago Britain First came to my area, and the English Defence League has also been. I worked closely with the police on both occasions. I am not convinced that the police funding formula will address all the issues, and that is my real concern. I would like to see some understanding of constituencies such as Bradford West. Ultimately, we need to be cutting crime, not cutting costs.

John Stevenson: The police seem to be a popular subject in this House, as we have discussed them on several occasions, and I must say Labour’s arguments have not really moved on. Today’s debate gives me an opportunity to reiterate some comments and observations that I have made in previous such debates. It is important that we now look forward and not back. There are two key issues, one of which is financial and the other more general. The first is the police funding formula and the future consultation, and the second is leadership and innovation within police forces—new ideas and new thinking between them and within them.
	On the police funding formula, the previous proposals were clearly not particularly popular in Cumbria. In fact, they would have had a devastating effect on the Cumbrian police force. I was very pleased when they were changed, because the support for retaining the Cumbrian police force is extremely strong within Cumbria. Therefore, the funding formula matters. If Cumbria is to retain an independent police force, the funding formula must be set out in a way that makes it financially viable. Under the proposed funding formula, that was clearly not the case, which is why I welcome the new consultation.
	I accept that there are other possibilities. I referred earlier to the implementation of the Scottish formula, which saw the number of forces going down from eight to one. I think it is recognised that that was flawed and a mistake. In England, there are 43 forces. I know that there is a view that some of those could be merged or amalgamated, but that is not appropriate for Cumbria.
	Cumbria is a large county in which local knowledge really does matter. It has a small population of half a million people. The terrain is challenging and the infrastructure poor, and the distance to major urban centres is considerable. As I have always said, the key issues are rurality and sparsity, and I very much hope that they will be central to the consultation on the funding formula going forward.
	On leadership and innovation, I genuinely believe that the election of police and crime and commissioners has been an innovative and successful policy. It has been great for Cumbria. Richard Rhodes has been an excellent PCC. As we move forward, new PCCs will be elected and others will be re-elected. Things will improve, as PCCs innovate and bring the police force into the 21st century. I completely support the Government in that policy. I look forward to the new consultation, and we must make sure that a Cumbrian police force continues to exist.

Emma Lewell-Buck: Many of my hon. Friends have spoken about the cuts to their local police force areas. Since 2010, the Northumbria police force has suffered some of the worst financial cuts of any force in the UK. I want to use what little time I have to share some of my personal stories, which show just how fantastic our police really are.
	In my previous career as a child protection social worker, I was followed home by violent clients and, as a result, had security measures in my home. I was placed on high alert with the local police station and taken to and from work under secure guard.
	I remember being pinned against the wall by an angry father while holding his screaming child in my arms. I remember being jumped on, attacked and punched in the face by another parent. I remember the terror of being in a house filled with more than 20 men, all drunk and high on drugs, as I was trying to rescue a young baby who was crawling around the floor, unclothed, among the broken glass, alcohol, ash and drug remnants. Her mother and all of the men were in my face shouting at me, making threats and blocking my exit from the home.
	I remember vividly—I wish that I did not—every child and adult who ever disclosed emotional, physical and sexual abuse to me. The one constant in all of those situations was the police. For anyone who has ever been in a dangerous or frightening situation, the relief felt at the sound and sight of police arriving on the scene is almost impossible to put into words. That is often the unseen side of our police force, a side that many of us, thankfully, will never have to encounter. Every day, officers are doing that work, making our communities safer, protecting children and adults from harm and working collaboratively with other agencies.
	In our area we have lost 762 officers, against the backdrop of a 60% increase in sexual offences and a 29% increase in violent crime. Our excellent police and crime commissioner, Vera Baird, and her team of officers are doing a sterling job of managing the cuts and protecting our communities, but they desperately need a fairer settlement. If I was in my old job, that level of cuts would worry me. Response times and capacity were vital in the stories that I have just briefly shared with the House, and I know better than most that I can always rely on our police. It is a shame that the police cannot rely on this Government.

Suella Fernandes: I have listened intently to the Labour party’s propositions and arguments, and I am stunned and, frankly, disappointed by the one-sided and misleading portrayal of this issue. The shadow Home Secretary talked about cuts to services, cuts to funding and cuts to the police, but he totally ignored the remarkable cut in crime that this country has seen since 2010. Crime has fallen by about 25% since 2010. He challenged the crime survey statistics, but all the independent reports and all the facts show the same decline in crime, with a fall of more than 25%. The statistics from the Office for National Statistics are clear that the crime rate is now 64% below its peak in 1995.
	Those figures are backed up in the regions. For example, in Hampshire, my county, we have seen an 11% drop in crime over the past year alone, making a fall of more than 30% since 2010. A recent study from Cardiff University showed a 10% fall in the number of people seeking treatment for violent crime injuries in hospital accident and emergency departments, which again reinforces the downward trend in violent crime.
	The shadow Home Secretary says that those statistics are overshadowed by the rise in cybercrime, so let us look at what the Government are doing to tackle cybercrime. I sat on the Joint Committee on the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill, which had 22 public evidence sessions and received thousands of pages of written evidence. We visited and met professionals on the frontline. The Bill will provide vital powers and necessary transparency and accountability to our online forces. Having talked to the professionals and listened to what they want, I can say that they want more powers to intercept online communications, interfere with equipment and track internet connection records.
	Last week we heard about paedophiles using secret Facebook groups to exchange imagery online and terrorists using WhatsApp, text and email to carry out their crimes. Although the technology is welcome, we need to ensure that encryption is not used against our law enforcement services, which are struggling to keep up with the criminals. The Bill will provide vital powers to ensure that they can tackle cybercrime. To echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), it focuses on methodology and technique rather than just throwing cash at the problem. That is what the professionals on the frontline want and what they are asking for, and that is what this Government are delivering.

Peter Dowd: It is becoming increasingly apparent that we are not safe with the Tories. With underinvestment in the NHS, social care and local roads, with what is happening to the environment and the economy, and with the downward pressure on the pound, we are under threat from the Tories. We are not safe with them. Now, in our communities, there are attacks on the police, and all the Prime Minister can do is refer to the Leader of the Opposition’s tie. How pathetic is that?
	The hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) talked about intelligence playing a crucial role in the police service. Of course it does, and significant amounts of that intelligence, certainly in my police force, come from neighbourhood policing, which is under the cosh. He talked about intelligence being important, but the very service that helps significantly with that at the neighbourhood level is under threat.
	The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) talked about special constables. They do a fantastic job, but they are additional to, not instead of, the police—that is absolutely crucial.

Jake Berry: My grandfather spent 25 years patrolling the streets of Bootle as a police officer, and he would say—as I would—that we must focus on ensuring that police officers are on the streets of Bootle, not sat behind desks in police headquarters doing work that non-warranted individuals can do.

Peter Dowd: I am really pleased that the hon. Gentleman says that, because I was just coming to that very point in relation to Merseyside police. A fantastic job is being done by the police and crime commissioner, Jane Kennedy; the chief constable, John Murphy; and my local commander, Peter Costello, and all his officers, who spend as much time as they can on the streets, against the odds.

Margaret Greenwood: I am sure my hon. Friend, as a fellow Merseyside MP, is aware of the fact that we lost 19% of our police officers on Merseyside between 2010 and 2015—something the grandfather of the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) would be very upset to hear. Workloads are soaring, and the officers who are left have to do a huge amount more with less and less. Does my hon. Friend agree that the recent Police Federation survey showing that 1,500 officers are off with stress or depression every day is an extremely worrying development and something we should all be concerned about?

Peter Dowd: I completely agree, and it surprises me that there are not even more police officers off with stress, given the pressures they are under.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) referred to the cumulative effect of the cuts to local government and local services such as the fire service on the police’s ability to do their job. That endangers the resilience of the police service, because officers are being taken away to do things that are not their responsibility. Huge amounts of their time are taken up with mental health cases because of the stress on local authorities and the NHS, and that should not be the case.
	In 2010, we had 7,300 police officers in my area; that is now down by 1,600. We are not making those figures up; the police and crime commissioner, the chief constable and the local commanders are not making them up, and they are not just taking those officers out of the system because they feel like it.
	What we have with this Government is jiggery-pokery finance and jiggery-pokery figures. For years, we were told we really could not put the council tax precept up by more than 2%, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now almost demanding that in relation to social care, and the Home Secretary is virtually demanding it. [Interruption.] She may well laugh, but that is the reality. She and her colleagues have told us over the years that we are spending too much through tax, but they then demand, for the sake of the Chancellor’s jiggery-pokery economics, that we put the put the precept up by 2%. That amounts to a fiddle; as my right hon. Friend said, it would amount to fraud in other circumstances, and those involved would be arrested.
	My local police and crime commissioner has used £2.1 million of reserves, and there are now another £3.3 million of savings to be made, with £27 million of savings to be made by 2019-20. We also have to contend with the deferred blunder in the formula, which will come back to haunt us.
	At the same time, crime is up. Hate crime is up, sexual offences are up, violent crime against women is up and knife crime is up. We will have to face those increases with less and less financial and human resource, notwithstanding the fact that Merseyside police service collaborates with the fire service in a joint command and control centre. We are doing what we can, but the police service can only do so much.
	The Scottish Nationalist party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless), asked how what happens with the British Transport police, the Ministry of Defence police and the Civil Nuclear Constabulary will interplay with the effects on local forces. We need more answers.

Margaret Greenwood: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree that those of us who work in this building every day—

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) extended a generosity that it was not within his capacity to grant. It was very decent of him, but he gave time that he did not possess.

Jim McMahon: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) for opening this debate and allowing so many interventions. We have been able to take part in a very active and constructive debate.
	As much as we talk about numbers, it is important that we talk about the crux of the issue, which is how it affects the people we are here to represent and their everyday experience of the changes to the police service. I have wondered throughout the debate what the Home Secretary thinks is the measure of success, because I am struggling to understand it. We talk about police numbers, which are important for some but not for others. We talk about crime figures, and some will say they are accurate and some will say not. We talk about the number of police stations and facilities, but are they important or not? It is very difficult for me and for a lot of people in the community to fully understand what on earth is going on with policing in this country.
	I can say, though, that in Greater Manchester the number of police cut is now over 2,000. The Minister knows that, because the House of Commons Library has provided that information and so it is on the public record, but he might not know that the number of police stations in Oldham borough has gone down dramatically. The police station in Royton has closed, the police station in Failsworth has closed, the Limeside police post has closed, the Chadderton police post has closed, Uppermill police station has been downgraded, and the custody cells at Oldham police station have been closed. On top of that—of course, justice is not isolated to the police—the magistrates court and the county court are closing. The Minister will not know how many police stations are closing in Oldham, because when I wrote to the Home Office to ask whether it collated information on that, it said it did not, so it does not even know how many police stations are open. That is very significant. Tomorrow, the police station in Failsworth will be sold to the highest bidder at public auction. The irony is that just down the road is Failsworth lodge, which Sir Robert Peel attended to be taught as a private school-educated youngster, and now the police station in that town is being sold.
	Crime is up by 14% in Greater Manchester. Sexual offences are up by 46%, violent crime is up by 36%, shoplifting is up by 9%, vehicle crime is up by 8%, and theft is up by 5%—little wonder, with fewer police and fewer police stations, and £200 million taken from Greater Manchester police. Were it not for the police and crime commissioner, Tony Lloyd—a fantastic advocate for policing—and the hard-working and dedicated police officers, the situation would no doubt be far worse. It cannot continue, because on top of all that we have lost community centres, youth centres and youth workers. We talk about prevention, and that community infrastructure is absolutely crucial for finding out what happening on the ground to help the police service do what it does best.

Helen Hayes: I want to pay tribute to the hard work of the police in my constituency, which often goes above and beyond the call of duty. In addition to investigating crime, apprehending criminals and keeping us safe, in the current context of cuts to other public services, the police are too often the service of last resort for residents with severe mental illness and other vulnerabilities. Yet in London our hard-working officers are being let down and undermined by the current Mayor. We have seen enormous cuts to policing in London over the past five years, with the loss of more than 5,600 uniformed officers, including PCSOs.

Byron Davies: Does the hon. Lady accept from me—I spent 32 years as a police officer—that the issue with mental health is not a new phenomenon but has always been the case?

Helen Hayes: The officers in my constituency tell me that the problem is more acute at the moment than it has been for many, many years, and that is my experience.
	While I welcome the change in recruitment policy by the Metropolitan police to recruit only Londoners, the cuts are clearly limiting the progress that this policy has the potential to make in terms of black and minority ethnic representation in the Met, which still stands at only 11.5%. Much of the reduction in officer numbers is being achieved by not replacing retiring officers. Without new recruitment, the diversity of the Met will continue to lag behind that of the population it serves.
	The devastating cuts have had a major impact. Every police officer I speak to is stretched more than they can ever recall having been in their working lives. Violent crime is going up, and last week HMIC announced that the Met requires improvement. Of all the reforms that the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) has made, the reorganisation of safer neighbourhood policing into the local policing model is the most damaging. Through that reform, the police are losing visibility, vital sources of intelligence and the ability to address minor problems before they escalate.
	The Dulwich area of my constituency was recently dubbed the UK’s burglary hotspot on the basis of data from insurance claims relating to burglary. I have spoken to many residents who have been the victim of that horrible crime in recent months. Many have had windows and doors smashed in during broad daylight. In one shocking attack, a resident had the contents of a petrol canister poured over him. In that context, our local police have been forced to be reactive instead of proactive, visiting the victims after the crimes had taken place and responding to emergency call-outs. However, a proactive approach, through neighbourhood policing, is vital to addressing some of the most serious and pressing challenges that we face, such as gun and youth crime, sexual exploitation, radicalisation and terrorism, forced marriage and honour-based violence. To investigate and prevent those crimes, the police require a depth of knowledge and relationship with the communities that they serve, which cannot be fabricated in the heat of a rapid response once a crime has been committed.
	One community activist in Brixton, who has engaged with the police for many years, said at a Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime roadshow meeting that the erosion of safer neighbourhood teams had
	“taken the heart out of policing”.

Margaret Greenwood: Neighbourhood policing, which is the eyes and ears of policing, is important in tackling terrorism. Every day, Members of the House walk past monitors that tell us that the level of threat is “severe”. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is the wrong time to be making cuts to our police?

Helen Hayes: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. When communities know their officers and officers know their patch, the police have a public face at a local level. When that is taken away, public confidence all too often depends on headlines, high-profile cases and the individual experiences of people who have, sadly, already been the victims of crime. Neighbourhood policing should not be regarded as the softer side of policing. It should be regarded not as a luxury to be cut in a time of austerity, but as a vital relationship-building bridge between the police and the communities that they serve, and as the key to resolving and preventing many of the serious crimes that can threaten the security and stability of our communities.

Naseem Shah: Is my hon. Friend aware that Her Majesty’s inspector of constabularies, Zoë Billingham, who led HMIC’s police effectiveness inspection, the report of which was published last week, described neighbourhood policing as
	“the cornerstone of the British policing model”
	and said
	“I need to raise a warning flag here. Forces’ good performance in preventing crimes is at risk if neighbourhood policing is further eroded.”

Helen Hayes: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which supports the case I am making. In London, we need a Labour Mayor to restore neighbourhood policing, as my hon. Friend has just said, as a cornerstone of the Met.

Jo Stevens: We have heard this evening about crime going up, workloads going up, police numbers going down and police support staff numbers going down. HMIC reports that neighbourhood policing is suffering. The Government cannot cull 35,000 posts from the police service and seek to maintain the protection of the public without any impact. The obvious impact of doing that is to put the public at risk. We need more resources to protect neighbourhood policing, not fewer.
	HMIC recognises that neighbourhood policing is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) has said, the cornerstone of crime prevention. That is something that the front-line police service have been telling Government for years. Neighbourhood policing enables officers to serve the public, remain vigilant to threats, gather the most accurate intelligence about terrorism and gain crucial local-to-global intelligence, whether for use in the fight against terror or the fight against child sexual exploitation.
	To turn specifically to Wales, a really concerning picture is developing. Last week, HMIC concluded in its report that Dyfed-Powys police could do more to keep people safe and to reduce crime. Its report on police effectiveness found that the approach to investigating crimes and supporting the vulnerable and victims required improvement. It also highlighted Dyfed-Powys’s allocation of complex crimes, sexual offences and high-risk domestic abuse to officers who did not have adequate training.
	Across Wales, we have seen a reduction of 783 police officers and even more support staff. Those cuts are akin to wiping three quarters of the entire Gwent police force off the face of the map. Police are now going back into offices to do administrative work. Such work has to be done and cannot be ignored—it is crucial to how policing works—but police officers need to be on the streets to build trust and relationships with local communities.
	In Wales, the Welsh Government have created 500 PCSOs not to replace police officers, but to backfill the gaps left by the 20% cuts to policing imposed by the Government since 2010. HMIC has stated that cuts should not be more than 12%, but that has been ignored by the previous coalition and the current Government. The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice has said that
	“Chief Constables and Police and Crime Commissioners have no excuse whatsoever not to deliver at least good quality policing in their areas.”
	I think that they have every excuse, given the cuts to their budgets. South Wales police, in my own area, will have a cash cut of nearly £3.5 million in real terms in its budget for 2016-17, compared with last year.
	The police are now spread so thinly that they are struggling to act as eyes and ears on our streets, which undermines their ability to do their job. At the same time, the Home Secretary is talking about risks to national security and the threat from terrorism is at an extreme level.

Steve McCabe: I agree with my hon. Friend that such threats are multiplying. The Home Secretary suggested earlier that crime was down and all was well, but she seems to have overlooked the fact that violent crime is actually rising and that in some parts of the country—Birmingham, for example—gun crime is rampant. Is this not the wrong time to cut special resources for policing?

Jo Stevens: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Knife crime has gone up again this year, and we have seen the figures released last week.
	The police are now spread so thinly that they cannot do their job. We talk about risks and threats to national security and efforts to counter the threat we face from terrorism. This is a time when we need more police, not less. There is only one thing that you get for less—and that is less.

Jack Dromey: Neighbourhood policing was one of Labour’s greatest achievements—a proud legacy. When we were in government, we built on the British model of policing by consent. My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) was absolutely right to say that when Labour left office, there were record numbers of police on the street: 17,000 more than in 1997 and, in addition, nearly 17,000 PCSOs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) said, neighbourhood policing is popular with the public. It is local policing with local roots, underpinned by local crime and safety partnerships, and it provides a local say.
	The British model of policing is now under threat, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) rightly said. The HMIC report by Zoë Billingham describes how neighbourhood policing is
	“the cornerstone of the British policing model”.
	However, she says:
	“I need to raise a warning flag here.”
	She goes on to talk about the dangers
	“if neighbourhood policing is further eroded.”
	She warns against losing
	“our eyes and ears in the community”.
	Crucially, she singles out her concern about limiting the ability of neighbourhood policing teams to identify and disrupt threats such as organised crime and terrorism. Indeed, both the current head of counter-terrorism and his predecessor have warned about the dangers of hollowing out neighbourhood policing because it is vital to intelligence gathering.

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman quotes Her Majesty’s inspector of constabulary Zoë Billingham, but she actually said:
	“We don’t think it should be inevitable that the preventative neighbourhood presence should be eroded”,
	because the Government’s funding settlement for the police means there is an opportunity for the police chiefs “to review their decision”.

Jack Dromey: The Home Secretary can, if she wishes, misinterpret what the report says. I have reported the inspector’s warnings that she is ignoring. The Government are ignoring the warnings from the police and the mounting concern of the public that they no longer see their police.
	Having cut the police service by 25% in the last Parliament, right up until the night before the comprehensive spending review, the Government were threatening to cut it by at least another 22%. With the Home Secretary failing to stand up for the police service, we were on the brink of catastrophe, but under pressure from Labour, the public and the police, the Chancellor staged, in what can only be described as a shambles, a last-minute U-turn and a promise was made. “Read my lips,” he intimated,
	“I am today announcing that there will be no cuts in the police budget at all. There will be real-terms protection for police funding. The police protect us, and we are going to protect the police.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 1373.]
	That promise to the public and the police has been broken. The Chancellor said he would protect the police, but now we know that police budgets are still being cut—a broken promise. It is just like in 2010 when the Prime Minister said that he would protect the frontline. Since then, 12,000 front-line officers have been lost—a broken promise. To add insult to injury, not only are the Tories continuing to slash police funding, but they expect the public to pay more to make up for it. The Tory sums rely on local people being charged an extra £389 million in council tax—a Tory police tax. The public are paying more for less.
	The shadow Secretary of State, and my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) and other Members spoke of the reality in the communities that they serve. Neighbourhood policing is being hollowed out: 18,000 officers have gone and 4,500 PCSOs have been lost in the last five bleak years. Some 1,300 have gone in the last six months alone—the equivalent of a whole force—and many more will go over the next 12 months. Hugh Orde was right when he said that a generation of progress is being reversed.
	There has been a major increase in knife crime, which is up by 9%, and a 27% rise in violent crime, including a 14% increase in the murder rate; sexual offences have gone up by 36% and reported rape is at its highest level since 2003; and victims are being let down, with half of all cases being closed without a suspect being identified. Resources are diminishing just when demand is soaring. Police in the 21st century face the triple challenges of terrorism, cybercrime and child sexual exploitation. The threats to British security in the 21st century demand a modernised, more responsive and better equipped police service, not a smaller one.
	The shambles of the comprehensive spending review was followed by the omnishambles over the funding formula, in which the Home Office used the wrong figures to misallocate hundreds of millions of pounds of police funding, meaning that the doomed review of the unfair funding formula has been delayed for a further year. “Sorry,” said the Policing Minister, “we used the wrong figures and we should have got it right.” That means that there is a stopgap settlement for only a year—more uncertainty and more unfairness. West Midlands police, my local force, and Northumbria police will continue to receive double the cuts that Surrey receives.
	The truth is that police budgets have not been protected. The truth is that crime is not falling, but changing. People are now more likely to be mugged online than in the street, yet in the words of the Office for National Statistics,
	“fraud and cyber crime are not currently included in the headline Crime Survey for England and Wales estimates”.
	They will now be included. The ONS states:
	“Preliminary results from this field trial indicate that there were an estimated 5.1 million incidents of fraud”.
	When the statistics finally tell the truth on crime, we will see crime nearly doubled under this Government, robbing them of the alibi they have used over the past five years: “We have cut the police, but we have cut crime.”
	In conclusion, the thin blue line is being stretched ever thinner. Our police service has been nothing short of heroic. The powerful contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) showed the day in, day out experience we all have. I see it in my constituency, ranging from, on the one hand, outstanding initiatives to engage young people, such as the formation by the police of a canoeing club that built excellent relationships with local young people and that helped to divert them from crime and helped to get information about those who were carrying out burglaries, to, on the other hand, the case of Lucy Lawton, a young mum who had her two children kidnapped by a fleeing bank robber—they were tracked down and the kids were returned to their distraught mother. These are good men and women, ordinary men and women doing extraordinary things, often in the most difficult circumstances, but they are being let down by this Government. Now is not the time to press ahead with the biggest cuts to any police service in Europe. The safety and security of our citizens comes first. That is why Labour, the party that built neighbourhood policing, will be the champion of neighbourhood policing and the champion of public safety and the police.

Mike Penning: I was laughing at the shadow Policing Minister, Mr Speaker, and I apologise for doing so as this is a very serious day and a very serious debate. Like the Home Secretary, I pay tribute to the emergency services that are still on the scene at the former power station at Didcot. I spoke to the chief fire officer earlier today and, on behalf of the House, expressed gratitude for the work that they are doing at the incident, which is very harrowing for them as well as for the loved ones and families of those who are still missing and those who have been injured and killed.
	I listened carefully to the speeches made by the shadow Home Secretary and by the shadow Policing Minister. I think that I might have heard his speech before—perhaps before the election, before the shadow Home Secretary wanted a 10% cut to policing, or perhaps I heard it last week, and perhaps I will hear it again next week. The shame about having this debate, curtailed as it is, is that we will have a debate next week, led by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, on the Committee’s report. I bet that I hear an almost identical speech then from the shadow Policing Minister.
	When we look carefully at what the Labour party is saying, we can see that on the one hand they are saying that we should have allowed cuts of 10% to policing until 2020 whereas, on the other hand, we hear speeches galore from Labour Back Benchers saying, “These cuts are not good.” What cuts? The cuts that happened between 2010 and 2015? Or those that would have happened had this country been foolish enough to elect a Labour Government?
	The shadow Home Secretary is trying to say that we should not have taken into consideration the precept that is allowed—the 2% or 5%. Every Home Secretary has done that and every Chancellor has done that, when we look at how we fund the police. All of a sudden, we have a completely different narrative—“We want to cut it, and we want to cut it even more.” It fascinated me.

Andy Burnham: rose—

Mike Penning: No, I will not give way. I am afraid that the shadow Home Secretary went on for far too long, as the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee said. Perhaps next week we might hear the same speech again.

Neil Coyle: rose—

Mike Penning: If I have time, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. He has a very important constituency issue that I have been trying to help him with and I will give way if I have time.
	It is very important that we also take into consideration what was said by the third party in this House, the Scottish National party, complaining about the fact that VAT at 20% is not allowed to be deducted. It was part of the business plan when the SNP put the plan together for one force in Scotland. That was physically part of the plan. Is this a new type of politics that is happening in Scotland, in which the SNP put a business plan together, get agreement, and afterwards say that it does not like it and wants to change it—a bit like with a referendum that took place not so long ago, which it is not very happy with either?
	I listened very carefully to the Opposition spokesmen, especially the shadow Policing Minister, who made a very powerful case for canoeing activities in his constituency—

Jack Dromey: For the prevention of crime.

Mike Penning: Absolutely, so perhaps the police and crime commissioner could explain why he has not spent part of the £153 million reserve in the West Midlands on that. Perhaps we should look at the polling in May when, as we have heard, the Labour party will have candidates in all 43 PCC areas. In its manifesto it said that it would not do that—it was going to abolish PCCs because they were wrong, expensive and unnecessary. It did not want them.

Jack Dromey: rose—

Mike Penning: No. Perhaps Paddy Tipping and Vera Baird convinced the Labour party that they would not accept being abolished. It is entirely up the electorate in England and Wales who to elect, but we should look carefully at the record of some PCCs around the country, especially Labour PCCs, where the cuts to front-line police have been the greatest.

Jack Dromey: rose—

Mike Penning: No. Perhaps we should look carefully at the only force in the country that is cutting the precept—Hertfordshire, in my part of the world. Why is it cutting it? Because part of the reserves that have been built up over the years will be used.

Jim McMahon: rose—

Jack Dromey: rose—

Mike Penning: I will not give way.
	We have complaints when we use the precept, and complaints when we cut it. We should be talking about what is delivering the best policing in this country. Has crime dropped since 2000? Yes. For the first time we have a Conservative Government who have the courage to include new types of crime in the statistics. These crimes have not just suddenly appeared in 2010 or 2015. They have been going on for years, but the previous Labour Administration refused to include them in the statistics. Will it be difficult for some forces? Yes, it will. Is it the right thing to do? Yes, and that is crucial.
	We have heard today quite a lot of scaremongering. There has been an increase in reporting domestic violence—quite rightly, I hope we will all agree. Every time I am at this Dispatch Box I say that we want people to have the confidence to come forward and report domestic violence, and it was not being reported correctly when we first came to government. We changed the reporting rules for how crime is reported.

Jake Berry: In the short time remaining, will the Minister address my concerns about what further protections can be given to special constables, and say whether the Government will act to extend the protection of the Police Federation to them?

Mike Penning: I was just coming on to special constables, because they were derided by the Opposition. Volunteers—what a terrible thing to have in a police force! Our specials are the most important people in the community. They come forward and do not get paid and only receive expenses. In my constituency, a special was attacked when on duty one evening. They laid his leg across the kerb, jumped on it and snapped his leg. The sort of protection that we should have—we will look at this, because it is vital—should mean that a special constable or a warranted officer has exactly the same protection as any other police officer in this country, and I speak weekly with the Police Federation about that.
	I will respond as soon as I can to the issue raised by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), because I want to get this right. A lot of work is going on, particularly with the chief constables, about how we can get better collaboration on capabilities going forward. It is not possible to come up with new formulas until I understand fully where the chief constables will stand on capabilities. The right hon. Gentleman said that the chief constables had not been in contact with me, but I have met three chief officers in the past seven days, including PCCs, and discussed the issue face to face. I have not spoken to all 43 since the report, but I will ensure that I meet them all.
	On Monday I have been asked to go to Didcot by the chief fire officer to thank the emergency services, and I am sure the whole House will join me in that. I hope that the country and the House will not listen to scaremongering from Labour Members who wanted to cut police funding by 10% or more.

Question put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 193, Noes 279.

Question accordingly negatived.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (29 FEBRUARY)

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Monday 29 February:
	(1) the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Secretary Philip Hammond relating to the draft European Union Referendum (Date of Referendum etc.) Regulations 2016; the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of the Motion not later than two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion; and proceedings on the Motion may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption;
	(2) paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) shall apply to any Motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition; proceedings on the Motion may continue, though opposed, for three hours and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of; and (3) Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to any motion to which paragraph (1) or (2) of this order applies.—(George Hollingbery.)

SUPPLY AND APPROPRIATION (ANTICIPATION AND ADJUSTMENTS) BILL

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Wednesday 2 March, any Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill ordered to be brought in and read the first time may be proceeded with as if its Second Reading stood as an Order of the Day, and Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills) shall apply.—(George Hollingbery.)

Katie Road NHS Walk-in Centre

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(George Hollingbery.)

Steve McCabe: Tonight I am seeking an opportunity to shed some light on the continuing saga of the Katie Road NHS walk-in centre in my constituency. Its future status has been in doubt ever since its fate was placed in the hands of one of the new clinical commissioning groups. My constituents have had to live with rumours, on-off consultations and continuing threats to the long-term future of an immensely popular and highly valued service that sees about 70,000 patients a year. The origins of the service lie in concerns that the large number of students in the area, as well as vulnerable individuals—often with mental health conditions and in unstable accommodation—were placing a demand on GP services that could not be met by existing provision, which was in turn placing intolerable strains on the local accident and emergency services.
	My own fairly extensive consultations with constituents have established that the centre is regularly used by those who cannot easily secure quick appointments with their own GP. That is often a problem for those in work—especially those who work unsocial hours—and for families with elderly relatives or young children who cannot easily gain access to GPs at weekends or in the evenings. The Katie Road centre sees about 300 to 400 patients during an average weekend.
	There is now fairly widespread recognition of the value of walk-in centres. The 2014 Monitor review reported rising demand for the service year on year. About 70% of the centres that were surveyed reported that they were seeing an average of 20,000 to 45,000 patients a year, as opposed to anticipated attendances of between 12,000 and 24,000. Yet despite the demand and support for walk-in centres, local commissioners have closed more than 50 since the start of 2010, reduced services at 23 others and reduced overall capacity by about 20%. I am not aware that, other than the Monitor report, there has been any substantial review into the impact of that loss of provision. I wonder whether the Minister is in a position to enlighten me, and whether he might take this opportunity to say what the Government’s position is on urgent care generally and walk-in centres in particular. I noticed that the Department of Health consultation “Refreshing the Mandate” says that
	“we want to improve people’s access to primary care through new forms of provision including rapid walk-in access.”
	In early 2013, Birmingham CrossCity clinical commissioning group announced plans to consult on the future of the Katie Road walk-in centre. That was apparently based on a report commissioned by the former South Birmingham primary care trust, a report that remains secret to this day. I first asked to see a copy of it in March 2013. In June 2013, the CCG called off its plans for walk-in centres and it was announced that they had been saved, only for the chair of the clinical commissioning group to reveal later that it planned to renew the contract temporarily and that Katie Road had been saved for 12 to 18 months. Later, the CCG announced that it planned a two-stage consultation, with a pre-consultation phase and then a main consultation with the public.
	Naturally, I wanted to ensure that my constituents had their say on the matter. When I consulted them, I discovered that more than 72% had experience of using the centre and were firmly opposed to any plans to close it.

Craig Whittaker: I agree that walk-in centres have the ability to take pressure off overworked A&Es, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the best way to take pressure not just off A&Es but walk-in centres is to have GP surgeries open seven days a week, so that people can access services overall?

Steve McCabe: I might agree with that, but one of the problems in my area is that GP surgeries have been cut as well, so that is not the answer.
	As I said, more than 72% of the people I consulted had experience of using the centre and were firmly opposed to any plans to close it. I also found that 56% of people had used the centre for out-of-hours emergency treatment, and 55% expressed serious concern about any plans to move the service to or near the A&E unit. My findings are consistent with that of the survey conducted on behalf of the NHS central midlands commissioning support unit in 2012, which found that more than two thirds of patients surveyed at eight walk-in centres and urgent care centres across Birmingham and Solihull indicated that they had attended because of an access-related issue—for example, they could not get an appointment with their GP or had to wait a considerable time to be seen.
	There were major objections from my constituents to relocating their walk-in centre to the main hospital. They referred, for example, to the distance, waiting times, parking and accessibility. During a visit to Katie Road, I witnessed an ambulance crew bring into the walk-in centre an elderly lady in need of stitches to a leg injury. They did that rather than take her to the A&E unit because of their concerns over the likely delays. The CCG’s own figures suggest that an average visit to the walk-in centre costs around £45, as opposed to £75 to £100 for an A&E visit.
	I am aware that there are many examples of walk-in centres being co-located with other health or social care services, and that some have a pharmacy on site or are co-located with diagnostic services such as X-ray services, dental facilities or family planning, but I should like to ask the Minister whether there is any evidence that shows an obvious advantage in co-locating an urgent care or walk-in centre alongside an A&E unit, especially evidence that would outweigh such negatives as distance, waiting times, parking and accessibility. In fact, is it not the case that most walk-in centres have a limited ability to refer patients on to secondary care services, as patients needing a referral to secondary care are normally referred by GPs, who are the traditional gatekeepers—a role that has, if anything, been strengthened as a result of the reorganisation of the NHS?
	In autumn 2013 the CCG commenced its pre-consultation. The chair of the CCG met with a number of my constituents in February 2014, when he heard clearly their desire to retain Katie Road and their objections to a plan being pushed by the CCG to relocate the walk-in centre to a site at the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Trust site, adjacent to the hospital’s A&E unit. In July 2014 I invited the chair of the CCG and a number of his staff to take part in a second meeting attended by more than 80 constituents—we were limited by the size of the room, or it would have been many more. At that meeting they heard clearly once again that there was total opposition to the closure of the walk-in centre and the plans to relocate to the hospital. That review or consultation eventually fizzled out, with the promise of a bigger and better consultation later in 2014.

Khalid Mahmood: The issue of such walk-in centres closing down is difficult for all of us in our constituencies. It is no good Conservative Members saying that we will have a seven-day a week GP service, because what they have done already with regard to the junior doctors dispute shows that they are not capable of doing that. That means that our constituents will continue to suffer. In particular, those at work cannot access services and are therefore put at greater risk through further misdiagnosis or non-diagnosis.

Steve McCabe: My hon. Friend will know very well that there is a problem with GP provision in his part of Birmingham as well as my own, so it is difficult to see how it could be stretched further.
	As I said, we were promised a bigger and better consultation for later in 2014, but that was abandoned in light of the impending general election, the date of which had, obviously, been known since the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011.
	No satisfactory explanation for the proposed change has ever been provided, but now, once again, the CCG wants to consult on the future of the walk-in service. This time it apparently wants to consult on a new model of service, the details of which are known only to itself but which has apparently not been clinically tested. It appears that, once again, it involves plans to relocate the walk-in centre to a site adjacent to the A&E unit.
	As the Minister will know, sections 75 to 77 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 specifically state that commissioners are required to act in a transparent way when procuring services:
	“Transparency is important in ensuring that commissioners are accountable for their decisions. As noted, commissioners also have a duty to involve the public in commissioning decisions.”
	It is not clear to me where in that part of the Act there is support for a series of bungled and inadequate on-off reviews and a constant determination to impose one outcome irrespective of the arguments to the contrary. I would welcome the Minister’s view on that. I am deeply concerned at the continuing threats to the service, which plays such a vital part in the delivery of healthcare for my constituents. I cannot see how the loss of a provision such as Katie Road is consistent with the Government’s ambitions for a seven-day NHS—perhaps the Minister can advise me on that.
	Ironically, I have recently discovered that the opening hours of the Katie Road centre are to be extended to help cope with winter pressures. Dr Lumley, who works with the neighbouring CCG, which also serves south Birmingham, is quoted in the press as saying, in response to that announcement, that
	‘this is great news for patients in Birmingham and means they can access the Walk in Centre until late, seven days a week.”
	Such a pity her views are not shared by her colleagues in CrossCity CCG, who assumed responsibility for Katie Road in the carve-up following the introduction of the Lansley reforms.
	It seems to me that the CCG is clearly out of its depth in handling a public consultation, or certainly one that can command any public confidence. What advice and support, if any, do the Government offer to CCGs on conducting consultations with the public? I am curious to know how much public money—money that could obviously have been spent on patient care—the CCG has spent on its on-off reviews and consultations so far. Is there any limit to how much public money a CCG is entitled to spend on a review or consultation on a single issue? If so, how much is it? Who is ultimately responsible for making a decision on the future of urgent care provision in south Birmingham? Do the Government accept any responsibility for this unsatisfactory state of affairs, and is there anything the Minister can do to help me and my constituents secure the future of this popular and well used health resource in south Birmingham, which is clearly needed and highly valued?
	At the very least, I urge the Minister to write to the chair of the CCG following this Adjournment debate, urging him to communicate properly with my constituents and their elected representatives, to stop repeatedly trying to impose plans that have already been rejected and to bring this whole sorry state of affairs to a satisfactory conclusion.

Ben Gummer: I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for his clear outlining of the case for his constituents and for Katie Road walk-in centre, and I congratulate him on securing this debate. He touches on an interesting issue for the NHS as a whole, one with which clinicians have been grappling in the past few years: what is the nature of urgent and emergency care in a world where demography is changing rapidly, where demands on the service are changing and where there are incredibly different and disparate populations? He rightly points out that he represents a constituency that has a high student population, that has areas with high levels of deprivation and that has a wide mix of ethnic diversity. Other parts of the country have a significantly ageing profile and do not have the ethnic mix that he is able to enjoy in his part of Birmingham; they have a different socio-economic profile.
	What is clear for commissioners and for clinicians is that the answer for urgent and emergency care in one area is different from that in another. I know that might be stating the bleedingly obvious, but it was something that was not observed by the NHS before Professor Sir Bruce Keogh initiated his review of urgent and emergency care in 2013. The result of that was a holistic, sensible and coherent plan for how urgent and emergency care should be delivered across the country. The variation in care, from Northumbria down to Cornwall, is extensive at the moment; there are considerable differences. The hon. Gentleman has highlighted the fact that there are differences even within the city of Birmingham. At the very least, we have made progress in the past few years in having a vision of what urgent and emergency care should look like. The challenge is to try to implement that across the service, which is why, over the past two years, considerable work has been done by clinicians and commissioners to try to understand how the principles of the Keogh review can inform the reshaping of emergency and urgent care in their patches.
	As the hon. Gentleman has identified with the issue of one walk-in centre—he can imagine how such local controversies become all the greater when they involve accident and emergency centres and trauma centres—these are matters that are very close to the hearts of constituents, who rely on those services. Those services are there in their moment of need, and they are, in a very real sense, the single greatest embodiment of the NHS and its values. We must treat urgent and emergency care with the utmost care.
	The plans that are being worked up across the country are being done carefully with commissioners in co-ordination with NHS England and, ultimately, with Professor Sir Bruce Keogh. Let me give the hon. Gentleman an idea of why that has been so carefully done and the extent of care that has been taken: it was only in the autumn that the route map for the whole country was published. I hope he will therefore understand why his local CCGs have had to revise the timetables by which they have been looking at urgent and emergency care. As he pointed out, they began their own study of this in Birmingham before Professor Sir Bruce Keogh undertook his review. They have had to revise their thinking in the light of that, and I know that they are taking forward their current consultation on the basis of the route maps that have been designed by NHS England with commissioners around the country.
	The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about process. I know why he is frustrated, and I completely understand his frustration. I also understand his irritation at the bureaucratese that can fly in his face as a representative of local people. I cannot specifically talk about the consultation of which he speaks because I do not have a detailed knowledge of it. All I can say is that in the NHS there are good and bad consultations. What we have tried to do over the past five years—and I am trying to do this in my current position—is to ensure that we bring the worst consultations up to the best, that we learn from where they have gone wrong and that they go better. I can of course commit to write to the chairman of his CCG, perhaps highlighting the work that has been done around producing very good consultations, reiterating the points that he has made in his speech, and asking for a clarification around each and every point that he has raised, so that he feels satisfied that he has raised his issues in the Chamber and that he can provide answers to his constituents. Clearly, he feels that, at the moment, there is much confusion and not too much clarity.
	I spoke to senior commissioners in the South Birmingham CCG today in advance of this debate to ensure that I was availed of the facts of the situation. They assured me that there is a full intention to continue services at Katie Road. The centre’s value is understood and well known, which is precisely why there was a temporary extension of the hours till 10 pm to deal with the winter pressures that are felt across the service. The commissioners also made it clear that there has not been a predetermination about the location of a further urgent care centre. It will be in Selly Oak, and it will be considerably larger than Katie Road so it will be able to accommodate more services and will be of greater use to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. The commissioners have not come to a decision yet about where it should be located. I know that they will want to engage fully with him and with the community in order to ensure that it goes to the right place.

Steve McCabe: When the Minister was given an assurance that Katie Road would continue, he was presumably told that the contract was due to come to an end. Was there any indication that there was an intention to have yet another roll-over contract, or whether there is a timescale attached to the consultation—yet another one?

Ben Gummer: No, I was not assured in that level of detail—I can ask for that information in my letter to the chairman of the CCG—but I think that the intentions were clear, and they seemed entirely honourable. They understood the purpose of the centre, and they clearly saw the disadvantage of those services discontinuing before a new urgent care centre opens. I think that they understand the hon. Gentleman’s perfectly reasonable point that there needs to be some sort of continuity of service so that local people know where to go and can feel confident about local service provision.
	On the important point about location and co-location, it will be different for different areas. The hon. Gentleman might have local pressures at University Hospitals Birmingham that do not pertain elsewhere in the country. It might be right—we are having exactly the same discussion in my constituency at the moment—to make use of an A&E brand and say, “Right, you have one simple place to go,” or it might be right to locate services on a different site. That will be different for different places. That is why it was decided in 2009, under the previous Labour Government, to give commissioners a greater role in local decisions on urgent and emergency care, because they are the ones who know their patches best, and what I write in Whitehall might not be right for local conditions in Selly Oak, or anywhere else for that matter.
	I cannot therefore give the hon. Gentleman an answer on co-location because it will be different in different parts of the country, but what I can tell him is that my letter to the chairman of the CCG will include a particular reference to the fact that he and his constituents wish to be consulted and that there needs to be a clear rationale behind the location so that people feel that it is done not for the ease of NHS-land, but for the betterment of patient service.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about consistency with seven-day services. I would like to reassure him that we are building seven-day services on the basis of the urgent and emergency care networks that were outlined by Professor Sir Bruce Keogh in his 2013 review and the consequent work. Contrary to the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood), the seven-day services programme is entirely clinically led. It draws on the work that the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges undertook in 2013 to develop 10 clinical standards. That is the basis of the work we are taking forward. The contract reform that we have undertaken, both for junior doctors and for consultants, is based in part on the recommendations of those 10 clinical standards, so it is routed entirely in the need to respond to the top clinicians’ advice on how we achieve consistency of service across seven days of the week.
	I would therefore expect the results of any consultation into urgent and emergency care in Birmingham to match precisely the overall work that we are doing to ensure consistency of standards across seven days of the week, good access for patients and a clear and transparent approach to urgent and emergency care, which in parts of the country, as the hon. Gentleman has identified, can at times be both patchy and confusing.
	Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked whether there is a threat to walk-in centres. Under this Government he will see continued investment in urgent and emergency care. We will seek to find greater clarity around urgent and emergency care so that there is a clearer brand and more easily recognisable services for local people, so that we eliminate inconsistencies across the service and so that we fulfil the best clinical advice on how to achieve better services in urgent and emergency care by following the recommendations of Professor Sir Bruce Keogh and the work that has been done by local clinicians since. I do not believe therefore that there is a threat to urgent and emergency care services, and I believe they will improve over the next four years.
	That is why I am happy to promise the hon. Gentleman that I will continue to answer questions on Katie Road. Should he have any further concerns, I would be delighted if he came to me so that we could talk about them. I will do what I can to allay those concerns and to make representations on his behalf to his clinical commissioning group so that he can get the answers he seeks.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.

Deferred Divisions

Estimates

That this House agrees with the Report of the Liaison Committee of 10 February:
	(1) That a day not later than 18 March be allotted for the consideration of the following Estimates for financial year 2015-16: Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, insofar as it relates to the science budget; and Department of Health, insofar as it relates to end of life care.
	(2) That a further day not later than 18 March be allotted for the consideration of the following Estimates for financial year 2015-16: Foreign & Commonwealth Office, insofar as it relates to the Spending Review 2015; and Home Office, insofar as it relates to reform of the police funding formula.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 301, Noes 60.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Road Traffic

That the draft Passenger and Goods Vehicles (Tachographs) (Amendment) Regulations 2016, which were laid before this House on 12 January, be approved.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 299, Noes 226.

Question accordingly agreed to.